NDLI: Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare

Content Provider	PubMed Central
Author	Carbone, Larry Austin, Jamie
Editor	Gao, Chang-qing
Copyright Year	2016
Abstract	Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.
Related Links	http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155001
Starting Page	155001
File Format	PDF
ISSN	19326203
e-ISSN	19326203
Journal	PLoS ONE
Issue Number	5
Volume Number	11
Language	English
Publisher	Public Library of Science
Publisher Date	2016-05-01
Access Restriction	Open
Rights Holder	Public Library of Science
Subject Keyword	Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all) Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all) Medicine(all) Research in Higher Education
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Multidisciplinary

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions

Molecular Characterization of Pneumococcal Isolates from Pets and Laboratory Animals

Animal or Plant: Which Is the Better Fog Water Collector?

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

Effect of Population Heterogenization on the Reproducibility of Mouse Behavior: A Multi-Laboratory Study

Biologic Data of Cynomolgus Monkeys Maintained under Laboratory Conditions

Dynamic Epitope Expression from Static Cytometry Data: Principles and Reproducibility

A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic

Cytotoxic and Pathogenic Properties of Klebsiella oxytoca Isolated from Laboratory Animals

Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare

Similar Documents

Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions

Molecular Characterization of Pneumococcal Isolates from Pets and Laboratory Animals

Animal or Plant: Which Is the Better Fog Water Collector?

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

Effect of Population Heterogenization on the Reproducibility of Mouse Behavior: A Multi-Laboratory Study

Biologic Data of Cynomolgus Monkeys Maintained under Laboratory Conditions

Dynamic Epitope Expression from Static Cytometry Data: Principles and Reproducibility

A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic

Cytotoxic and Pathogenic Properties of Klebsiella oxytoca Isolated from Laboratory Animals

Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare