Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41052785›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2025

Evaluation of Direct Colony Sampling Compared with Sentinel-Free Soiled Bedding Testing for Murine Quarantine Programs.

Kerith R Luchins, Blaire Holliday, Faazal Rehman, Chago J Bowers, Allison M Ostdiek, George P Langan, Jessica L Felgenhauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Enhancing Rodent Welfare, Cost Savings, and Efficiency: Implementation and Review of Data-Driven Improvements.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kerith R Luchins1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Blaire Holliday3School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Faazal Rehman1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Chago J Bowers1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Allison M Ostdiek1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
George P Langan1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jessica L Felgenhauer1Animal Resources Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sentinel-free soiled bedding (SFSB) is a form of environmental health monitoring that is an efficient method for monitoring rodent colony health. In contrast to direct colony sampling (DCS), when using PCR testing, SFSB can detect both active and past infections and is a less invasive method, classifying it as refinement. In this study, we compared DCS and SFSB for quarantine health monitoring in terms of their effectiveness in detecting pathogens during a 14-day quarantine program. In addition, we performed a time and motion study to examine the time required for each sampling method. We hypothesized that SFSB testing for quarantine would exhibit a greater degree of sensitivity than DCS for the tested pathogen list and take less time to perform. Eleven shipping containers, each containing 4-5 male or female mice aged 6-11 weeks, were subjected to simulated shipping stress as would occur during importation. During the 14-day quarantine, DCS samples included oral swabs, adhesive pelt swabs, and fresh fecal pellets that were pooled per cage and collected on days 0 (baseline) and 7. Each cage was given its own soiled-bedding sampling system, and SFSB samples were comprised of 3 groups: day 0, day 7, and a combination of days 0 and 7. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 different SFSB sample time points (day 0, day 7, and days 0 and 7 combined) for all pathogens evaluated (P > 0.05). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between the DCS day 7 and the days 0 and 7 combined SFSB time point for all pathogens evaluated (P > 0.05). Furthermore, SFSB was shown to be less time-consuming than DCS. Thus, SFSB sampling should be considered for quarantine health monitoring programs, as it has similar sensitivity to DCS, is a refinement, and offers a time-saving benefit.

Indexed as

DCS, direct colony samplingEHM, environmental health monitoringNEA, non-excluded agentposNEA, positive NEAqPCR, quantitative PCRSFSB, sentinel-free soiled bedding.

Identifiers

PMID41052785
PMCPMC12532110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.