评估大鼠手术和肝硬化严重程度的评分参数。

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2023-03-10 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2023.21
Johanne C Krueger, Moriz A Habigt, Marius J Helmedag, Moritz Uhlig, Michaela Moss, André Bleich, René H Tolba, Rolf Rossaint, Marc Hein, Mare Mechelinck
{"title":"评估大鼠手术和肝硬化严重程度的评分参数。","authors":"Johanne C Krueger, Moriz A Habigt, Marius J Helmedag, Moritz Uhlig, Michaela Moss, André Bleich, René H Tolba, Rolf Rossaint, Marc Hein, Mare Mechelinck","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Severity assessment in animals is an ongoing field of research. In particular, the question of objectifiable and meaningful parameters of score-sheets, as well as their best combination, arise. This retrospective analysis investigates the suitability of a score-sheet for assessing severity and seeks to optimise it for predicting survival in 89 male Sprague Dawley rats (<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>), during an experiment evaluating the influence of liver cirrhosis by bile duct ligation (BDL) on vascular healing. The following five parameters were compared for their predictive power: (i) overall score; (ii) relative weight loss; (iii) general condition score; (iv) spontaneous behaviour score; and (v) the observer's assessment whether pain might be present. Suitable cut-off values of these individual parameters and the combination of multiple parameters were investigated. A total of ten rats (11.2%; 10/89) died or had to be sacrificed at an early stage due to pre-defined humane endpoints. Neither the overall score nor any individual parameter yielded satisfactory results for predicting survival. Using retrospectively calculated cut-off values and combining the overall score with the observer's assessment of whether the animal required analgesia (dipyrone) for pain relief resulted in an improved prediction of survival on the second post-operative day. This study demonstrates that combining score parameters was more suitable than using single ones and that experienced human judgement of animals can be useful in addition to objective parameters in the assessment of severity. By optimising the score-sheet and better understanding the burden of the model on rats, this study contributes to animal welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of score parameters for severity assessment of surgery and liver cirrhosis in rats.\",\"authors\":\"Johanne C Krueger, Moriz A Habigt, Marius J Helmedag, Moritz Uhlig, Michaela Moss, André Bleich, René H Tolba, Rolf Rossaint, Marc Hein, Mare Mechelinck\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/awf.2023.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Severity assessment in animals is an ongoing field of research. In particular, the question of objectifiable and meaningful parameters of score-sheets, as well as their best combination, arise. This retrospective analysis investigates the suitability of a score-sheet for assessing severity and seeks to optimise it for predicting survival in 89 male Sprague Dawley rats (<i>Rattus norvegicus</i>), during an experiment evaluating the influence of liver cirrhosis by bile duct ligation (BDL) on vascular healing. The following five parameters were compared for their predictive power: (i) overall score; (ii) relative weight loss; (iii) general condition score; (iv) spontaneous behaviour score; and (v) the observer's assessment whether pain might be present. Suitable cut-off values of these individual parameters and the combination of multiple parameters were investigated. A total of ten rats (11.2%; 10/89) died or had to be sacrificed at an early stage due to pre-defined humane endpoints. Neither the overall score nor any individual parameter yielded satisfactory results for predicting survival. Using retrospectively calculated cut-off values and combining the overall score with the observer's assessment of whether the animal required analgesia (dipyrone) for pain relief resulted in an improved prediction of survival on the second post-operative day. This study demonstrates that combining score parameters was more suitable than using single ones and that experienced human judgement of animals can be useful in addition to objective parameters in the assessment of severity. By optimising the score-sheet and better understanding the burden of the model on rats, this study contributes to animal welfare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936376/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.21\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动物的严重程度评估是一个持续的研究领域。其中,评分表的客观和有意义的参数及其最佳组合问题尤为突出。在一项评估肝硬化胆管结扎术(BDL)对血管愈合的影响的实验中,89 只雄性 Sprague Dawley 大鼠(Rattus norvegicus)接受了严重程度评估,本回顾性分析调查了评分表的适用性,并试图优化评分表以预测存活率。对以下五个参数的预测能力进行了比较:(i) 总体评分;(ii) 相对体重减轻;(iii) 一般状况评分;(iv) 自发行为评分;(v) 观察者对是否可能出现疼痛的评估。研究了这些单个参数和多个参数组合的合适临界值。共有十只大鼠(11.2%;10/89)因预先设定的人道终点而死亡或不得不在早期阶段牺牲。在预测存活率方面,总评分和任何单个参数都没有令人满意的结果。使用回顾性计算出的临界值,并将总评分与观察者对动物是否需要镇痛剂(双吡喃酮)来缓解疼痛的评估相结合,可以更好地预测术后第二天的存活率。这项研究表明,综合评分参数比使用单一参数更合适,在评估严重程度时,除了客观参数外,经验丰富的人类对动物的判断也很有用。通过优化评分表和更好地了解该模型对大鼠造成的负担,本研究为动物福利做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of score parameters for severity assessment of surgery and liver cirrhosis in rats.

Severity assessment in animals is an ongoing field of research. In particular, the question of objectifiable and meaningful parameters of score-sheets, as well as their best combination, arise. This retrospective analysis investigates the suitability of a score-sheet for assessing severity and seeks to optimise it for predicting survival in 89 male Sprague Dawley rats (Rattus norvegicus), during an experiment evaluating the influence of liver cirrhosis by bile duct ligation (BDL) on vascular healing. The following five parameters were compared for their predictive power: (i) overall score; (ii) relative weight loss; (iii) general condition score; (iv) spontaneous behaviour score; and (v) the observer's assessment whether pain might be present. Suitable cut-off values of these individual parameters and the combination of multiple parameters were investigated. A total of ten rats (11.2%; 10/89) died or had to be sacrificed at an early stage due to pre-defined humane endpoints. Neither the overall score nor any individual parameter yielded satisfactory results for predicting survival. Using retrospectively calculated cut-off values and combining the overall score with the observer's assessment of whether the animal required analgesia (dipyrone) for pain relief resulted in an improved prediction of survival on the second post-operative day. This study demonstrates that combining score parameters was more suitable than using single ones and that experienced human judgement of animals can be useful in addition to objective parameters in the assessment of severity. By optimising the score-sheet and better understanding the burden of the model on rats, this study contributes to animal welfare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1