ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024
Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach.
Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the efficacy of skin swabbing as a minimally invasive method of genetic sampling from Indian amphibians.Biology methods & protocols · 2026Article
- Erratum: Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach - CORRIGENDUM.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major advancements in ecology and biodiversity conservation have been made thanks to methods for marking and individually tracking animals. Marking animals is both widely used and controversial due to the potential consequences for animal welfare, which are often incompletely evaluated prior to implementation. Two outstanding knowledge gaps concerning the welfare consequences of individual marking are their short-term behavioural impacts and the relative impacts from marking versus the handling of animals while carrying out procedures. We addressed these knowledge gaps through an experimental study of alpine newts (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.