ReviewJournal of fish biology2025
Summarising 40 years of gastric lavage studies to evaluate efficiency and survival in sharks and rays.
Review in Journal of fish biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights into diet and niche separation in the context of prey availability between two sympatric whiprays in a tropical intertidal estuary.Journal of fish biology · 2026Article
- Development of a non-lethal stomach content analysis method for freshwater eels: An empirical evaluation of the tube method for Anguilla marmorata.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Summarising 40 years of gastric lavage studies to evaluate efficiency and survival in sharks and rays.Journal of fish biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, lethal stomach dissection has been used to study the diets of sharks and rays, but conservation and animal welfare concerns necessitate non-lethal alternatives, such as gastric lavage (stomach or gut flushing). In this study, we summarised gastric lavage studies on elasmobranchs to identify which species/groups it has been effective for, the difficulties encountered and if post-release survival has been evaluated. Secondly, we used a field study to (1) demonstrate how to perform gastric lavage on juvenile rays, (2) assess its effectiveness and (3) verify post-release survival using mark-recapture techniques. Only 23 published studies have used gastric lavage on either sharks or rays, indicating that this technique is still highly underutilised in ecological research. Effectiveness at obtaining stomach contents varied but often exceeded 50%, particularly for rays. Captivity studies provided greater evidence of survival than field studies, and only one field study assessed long-term survival using tag-recapture methods. In this field study, gastric lavage was highly effective for young juvenile rays, and recaptures verified survival for various periods after release. More research is needed to adapt gastric lavage across a wider range of species and sizes, especially larger sharks. Furthermore, incorporating approaches to validate survival following non-lethal handling procedures will be essential to ensure ethical compliance and optimal outcomes for research and conservation.
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.