Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41519500›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2026

Rehoming Laboratory Rats: Exploring Perceptions of Rehomers, Animal Technicians, and Biomedical Researchers.

Georgia Greenan, Caroline Quigley, Ignacio Vinuela-Fernandez, John Menzies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Georgia Greenan1Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Caroline Quigley2Bioresearch & Veterinary Services, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; and.
Ignacio Vinuela-Fernandez2Bioresearch & Veterinary Services, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; and.
John Menzies1Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans work with animals in many different ways. In some contexts, animals are allowed to 'retire' and be rehomed in sanctuaries or private homes when they are no longer able or needed to work. Similarly, laboratory animals can be rehomed at the end of a study. However, there is relatively little research on stakeholders' perceptions of rehoming. We explored the views of three key groups: the people who adopt these animals, the animal technicians who care for these animals prior to rehoming, and the researchers who are normally responsible for most of the interactions between people and these animals. To do this, we carried out a thematic analysis of semistructured interviews. Our aim was to obtain insights that could inform reflection and guide future research priorities around rehoming programs. Our study demonstrated support for laboratory rat rehoming in all stakeholder groups. Rehomers' and technicians' comments focused chiefly on the potential benefits of rehoming to the animal and benefits to institutional openness. Researchers made similar comments, but these were tempered by concerns around the welfare of the animals after rehoming, the fate of animals that cannot be rehomed, rehomers' health and wellbeing, and the potential risks associated with the transparency of individual's and the institution's use of animals in research. We discuss these themes in the context of the ethics of laboratory animal use, manifesting a culture of care, and challenges around enhancing institutional openness on animal research.

Identifiers

PMID41519500
PMCPMC13086216

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.