4.2 Review

Retrospective Review of Anesthetic and Analgesic Regimens Used in Animal Research Proposals

Journal

ALTEX-ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 65-80

Publisher

SPEKTRUM AKADEMISCHER VERLAG-SPRINGER-VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.14573/altex.1804011

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation
  2. Open Access Publication Fund of the Freie Universitat Berlin
  3. German foundation SET
  4. ZEBET [FK 1329-472]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pain has a profound effect on an animal's wellbeing. In Germany, researchers using animals have been legally required to reduce any possible pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to an absolute minimum since 1972. To evaluate how these provisions have been implemented in practice, an assessment of refinements to experimental techniques was conducted by retrospectively reviewing 684 surgical interventions described in 506 animal research applications that were sent to the German competent authorities for approval in 2010. This paper focuses on the efficacy of proposed anesthesia and peri- and postoperative analgesia. Postoperative analgesia was not proposed for 30% of surgeries. Following 10% of procedures, animals were to be given pain relieving medication if the investigators decided this was necessary; however, structured assessments to detect pain were absent. Consequences of unalleviated pain and omission of pain assessment techniques are discussed, and some recommendations to improve anesthesia and analgesia are given. The findings of this review highlight the need for improvement, both to fulfil legal requirements and to improve animal welfare. To monitor compliance with animal welfare regulations and ensure good veterinary and scientific practices, education and training need to be intensified. Adherence to the items listed in the PREPARE and ARRIVE guidelines and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) should become legally binding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available