Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064738›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026

Inconsistency in cervical dislocation: A UK survey of techniques and tools utilised for laboratory rodents.

Jessica E Martin, Matthew C Leach, Jasmine M Clarkson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 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

3 authors.

Jessica E MartinSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
Matthew C LeachComparative Biology Centre, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
Jasmine M ClarksonSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5899-4245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rodents remain the predominant mammalian species used for biomedical research and must be humanely killed upon completion of the scientific work. Across the UK, cervical dislocation is reported as the most common method for humanely killing laboratory rodents. Cervical dislocation involves the separation of the vertebrae at the top of the spine and can be achieved manually or mechanically (e.g. using a tool). There is no standardised method for achieving consistent cervical dislocation in the desired location, and no dedicated tool specifically designed, validated and commercially available to achieve accurate and effective dislocation. Previous work has highlighted inaccuracy in method application and, as such, has the potential to risk animal welfare at killing. The aim of this work was to identify the techniques used by personnel across UK institutions for performing cervical dislocation using an online questionnaire. We found marked inconsistencies in technique and the use of tools to aid the application. Mice are predominantly killed via manual operation (i.e. without the aid of a tool), while rats are more often killed using mechanical aids. A wide range of improvised tools (i.e. not designed for killing) were reported, including pens, scissors, and cage scrapers. Further, there was little or no consensus regarding which physical actions are essential for a successful dislocation (i.e. a stretch and/or a twist), and a lack of reported institutional standard operating procedures. Further work is needed to establish validated methods and clear standards to ensure this common method is applied humanely and consistently.

Indexed as

Animal welfareeuthanasiahumanekillinglaboratory rodentsSchedule 1

Identifiers

PMID42064738
PMCPMC13126198

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.