Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129528›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A survey on the implementation of environmental health monitoring in mouse facilities in German-speaking countries.

Esther Mahabir, Katja Schmidt, Thomas Kolbe, Stephanie Buchheister, Manuel Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Esther MahabirComparative Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Katja SchmidtMicrobiological Diagnostics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4828-7974
Thomas KolbeInstitute of In vivo and In vitro Models, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2974-8066
Stephanie BuchheisterInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0589-5857
Manuel MillerCore Facility Laboratory Animal Services, Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7588-016X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The health status of laboratory animals plays a decisive role not only for the health and welfare of the animals but also for the validity of study results. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of publications on environmental health monitoring (EHM), which uses molecular biological methods to detect nucleic acids of infectious agents in individually ventilated cage systems, e.g. in exhaust air dust. This monitoring strategy can reduce the number of mice used for health monitoring in conformity with the 3Rs. Numerous studies have shown that EHM is reliable and sensitive and is, therefore, a useful method for health monitoring of mice. An online survey was created to assess the prevalence of the use of EHM in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and to better understand the factors influencing its use in animal facilities. The survey revealed that the majority of facilities primarily equipped with individually ventilated cage systems already use EHM to varying degrees, replacing between 8 and 1200 animals per year and facility. However, the predominant strategy is still the use of (sentinel) animals for health monitoring. Beliefs on factors such as cost, reliability and the number of false-positive results differ significantly between facilities that predominantly use either animals or EHM. Additionally, the choice of monitoring strategy may be influenced by the existing cage system and the availability of a decontamination option for the equipment. The evaluation of the survey showed that there is still a gap in knowledge and a demand for specific training on the topic of health monitoring and especially on EHM.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthEnvironmental MonitoringHousing, AnimalAnimalsAnimal WelfareAustriaGermanyMiceSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID41129528
PMCPMC12548899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.