Laboratory animals search filter for different literature databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsycINFO.

Systematic reviews are important tools in animal research, but the ever-increasing number of studies makes retrieval of all relevant publications challenging. Search filters aid in retrieving as many animal studies as possible. In this paper we provide updated and expanded versions of the SYRCLE animal filters for PubMed and Embase. We provide the Embase filter for both Embase.com and via Ovid. Furthermore, we provide new animal search filters for Web of Science (WoS) and APA PsycINFO via psycnet.apa.org and via Ovid. Compared with previous versions, the new filters retrieved 0.5-47.1% (19 references for PubMed, 837 for WoS) more references in a real-life example. All filters retrieved additional references, comprising multiple relevant reviews. A random sample from WoS found at least one potentially relevant primary study. These animal search filters facilitate identifying as many animal studies as possible while minimising the number of non-animal studies.

A systematic review of discomfort due to toe or ear clipping in laboratory rodents.

Toe clipping and ear clipping (also ear notching or ear punching) are frequently used methods for individual identification of laboratory rodents. These procedures potentially cause severe discomfort, which can reduce animal welfare and distort experimental results. However, no systematic summary of the evidence on this topic currently exists. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for discomfort due to toe or ear clipping in rodents. The review methodology was pre-specified in a registered review protocol. The population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) question was: In rodents, what is the effect of toe clipping or ear clipping, compared with no clipping or sham clipping, on welfare-related outcomes? Through a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and grey literature, we identified seven studies on the effect of ear clipping on animal welfare, and five such studies on toe clipping. Studies were included in the review if they contained original data from an in vivo experiment in rodents, assessing the effect of toe clipping or ear clipping on a welfare-related outcome. Case studies and studies applying unsuitable co-interventions were excluded. Study quality was appraised using an extended version of SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE)'s risk of bias tool for animal studies. Study characteristics and outcome measures were highly heterogeneous, and there was an unclear or high risk of bias in all studies. We therefore present a narrative synthesis of the evidence identified. None of the studies reported a sample size calculation. Out of over 60 different outcomes, we found evidence of discomfort due to ear clipping in the form of increased respiratory volume, vocalization and blood pressure. For toe clipping, increased vocalization and decreased motor activity in pups were found, as well as long-term effects in the form of reduced grip strength and swimming ability in adults. In conclusion, there is too little evidence to reliably assess discomfort due to toe or ear clipping, and the quality of the available evidence is uncertain. Adequately powered, high-quality studies reporting reliable, relevant outcome measures are needed to accurately assess the impact of these identification techniques. Until more reliable evidence is available, any effect of toe clipping or ear clipping on animal welfare and study results cannot be confirmed or excluded.

A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies.

Before starting a new animal experiment, thorough analysis of previously performed experiments is essential from a scientific as well as from an ethical point of view. The method that is most suitable to carry out such a thorough analysis of the literature is a systematic review (SR). An essential first step in an SR is to search and find all potentially relevant studies. It is important to include all available evidence in an SR to minimize bias and reduce hampered interpretation of experimental outcomes. Despite the recent development of search filters to find animal studies in PubMed and EMBASE, searching for all available animal studies remains a challenge. Available guidelines from the clinical field cannot be copied directly to the situation within animal research, and although there are plenty of books and courses on searching the literature, there is no compact guide available to search and find relevant animal studies. Therefore, in order to facilitate a structured, thorough and transparent search for animal studies (in both preclinical and fundamental science), an easy-to-use, step-by-step guide was prepared and optimized using feedback from scientists in the field of animal experimentation. The step-by-step guide will assist scientists in performing a comprehensive literature search and, consequently, improve the scientific quality of the resulting review and prevent unnecessary animal use in the future.

A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase.

Collecting and analysing all available literature before starting a new animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing systematic reviews of animal research. In practice, finding all animal studies relevant to a specific research question turns out to be anything but simple. In order to facilitate this search process, we previously developed a search filter for retrieving animal studies in the most often used biomedical database, PubMed. It is a general requirement for systematic reviews, however, that at least two databases are searched. In this report, we therefore present a similar search filter for a second important database, namely Embase. We show that our filter retrieves more animal studies than (a combination of) the options currently available in Embase. Our search filters for PubMed and Embase therefore represent valuable tools for improving the quality of (systematic) reviews and thereby of new animal experiments.

Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed.

Collecting and analysing all available literature before starting an animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing a systematic review (SR) of animal research. Writing such review prevents unnecessary duplication of animal studies and thus unnecessary animal use (Reduction). One of the factors currently impeding the production of 'high-quality' SRs in laboratory animal science is the fact that searching for all available literature concerning animal experimentation is rather difficult. In order to diminish these difficulties, we developed a search filter for PubMed to detect all publications concerning animal studies. This filter was compared with the method most frequently used, the PubMed Limit: Animals, and validated further by performing two PubMed topic searches. Our filter performs much better than the PubMed limit: it retrieves, on average, 7% more records. Other important advantages of our filter are that it also finds the most recent records and that it is easy to use. All in all, by using our search filter in PubMed, all available literature concerning animal studies on a specific topic can easily be found and assessed, which will help in increasing the scientific quality and thereby the ethical validity of animal experiments.