Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42006390›Full record

ReviewVeterinary evidence

Thinking inside the box: do hiding boxes reduce the fear and stress of hospitalised cats?

Leah Foster

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary evidence. 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

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PICO question: In hospitalised domestic cats, does the use of hiding boxes compared to no intervention reduce fear and stress? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Five studies were critically reviewed. All five studies were defined by the researchers as randomised control trials. Strength of evidence: Moderate. Outcomes reported: Four of the five studies showed moderate evidence that hiding boxes reduce fear and stress in cats, with reduced cat stress scores (CSS) in cats given a hiding box compared to control groups. The hiding box was found more useful in aggressive cats as CSS reduced faster in these groups. Among the three studies that recorded objective physiological stress measures (e.g., temperature, salivary cortisol), two studies showed no statistically significant stress reductions between the hiding box and control groups. Only one study of these three found lower heart rates in hiding box cats, but this may have been influenced by confounding factors. Conclusion: There is moderate evidence suggesting that the use of hiding boxes in hospitalised cats is associated with reduced stress. The strength of the evidence is considered moderate due to varying limitations (e.g., small sample sizes) in the reviewed studies. Despite these limitations, incorporating a plastic or single-use disposable cardboard hiding box into existing feline-friendly cage environments is recommended for consideration. However, the use of a hiding box should be determined on a case-by-case basis as it may not be suitable for all patients (e.g. critical care patients requiring constant visualisation). High-standard infection control protocols should be applied to ensure the hiding box does not act as a fomite for possible infection transmission.

Indexed as

BEHAVIOURFELINEHIDING BOXESSENSORY ENRICHMENTSTRESS RELIEFWELLBEING

Identifiers

PMID42006390
PMCPMC13011049

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.