Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,562

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes

Diehl, Karl‐Heinz, Hull, Robin, Morton, David, Pfister, Rudolf, Rabemampianina, Yvon, Smith, David, Vidal, Jean‐Marc, Vorstenbosch, Cor Van De·2001·Journal of Applied Toxicology

Abstract

This article is the result of an initiative between the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations (EFPIA) and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). Its objectives are to provide the researcher in the safety evaluation laboratory with an up‐to‐date, easy‐to‐use set of data sheets to aid in the study design process whilst at the same time affording maximum welfare considerations to the experimental animals. Although this article is targeted at researchers in the European Pharmaceutical Industry, it is considered that the principles underpinning the data sets and refinement proposals are equally applicable to all those who use these techniques on animals in their research, whether in research institutes, universities or other sectors of industry. The implications of this article may lead to discussion with regulators, such as those responsible for pharmacopoeial testing. There are numerous publications dealing with the administration of test substances and the removal of blood samples, and many laboratories also have their own ‘in‐house’ guidelines that have been developed by custom and practice over many years. Within European Union Directive 86/609EEC1 we have an obligation to refine experiments to cause the minimum amount of stress. We hope that this article will provide background data useful to those responsible for protocol design and review. This guide is based on peer‐reviewed publications whenever possible, but where this is not possible we have used ‘in‐house’ data and the experience of those on the working party (as well as helpful comments submitted by the industry) for a final opinion. The guide also addresses the continuing need to refine the techniques associated with the administration of substances and the withdrawal of blood, and suggests ways of doing so. Data‐sharing between laboratories should be encouraged to avoid duplication of animal work, as well as sharing practical skills concerning animal welfare and scientific problems caused by ‘overdosing’ in some way or another. The recommendations in this guide refer to the ‘normal’ animal, and special consideration is needed, for instance, during pregnancy and lactation. Interpretation of studies may be confounded when large volumes are administered or excessive sampling employed, particularly if anaesthetics are used. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jat.727

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,562

Metadata

Authors
Diehl, K., Hull, R., Morton, D., Pfister, R., Rabemampianina, Y., Smith, D., Vidal, J., & Vorstenbosch, C. V. D.
Venue
Journal of Applied Toxicology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
15-23
ISSN
  • 0260-437X (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1263
OpenAlex
W2071424589
Cited by
1,562
References
0
FWCI
21.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jat.727
The paper
Diehl, K., Hull, R., Morton, D., Pfister, R., Rabemampianina, Y., Smith, D., Vidal, J., & Vorstenbosch, C. V. D. (2001). A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes. Journal of Applied Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.727

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.