ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
A Welfare Assessment Tool to Harmonize Care and Management for Research Rabbits.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Welfare Assessment Tool to Harmonize Care and Management for Research Rabbits.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal welfare assessment is a vital component of working with animals in a research environment and is a growing expectation. Rabbits are a common species worked with in biomedical research, but information on rabbit welfare and best practices are limited, making it difficult to assess welfare. To address this gap, a rabbit welfare assessment tool was developed within an international contract research organization and commercial breeder. The tool contained 134 descriptors including input- and output-based measures of welfare across six categories: physical, behavioral, environmental, training, procedural, and culture of care. Benchmarking assessments occurred in March and September 2025, assessing 13 facilities across seven countries. In March, overall scores were in the range of 70-92%, with high scores in the physical category (avg: 97%) and the most room for improvement in training (avg: 73%). In September, overall scores were in the range of 77-88%, with the highest score in the physical category (avg: 98%) and the most room for improvement in culture of care (avg: 74%). The results of the assessments identified strengths in rabbit management programs, as well as identified areas needing refinement. The results allow for development of facility and organizational level goals to improve rabbit welfare and create a culture of continuous improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.