CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal testing and alternativesVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia

How much 'enrichment' is enough for laboratory rodents? A systematic review and meta-analysis re-assessing the impact of well-resourced cages on morbidity and mortality

Open access
Cait, Jessica, Winder, Charlotte B., Mason, Georgia J.·2024·Applied Animal Behaviour Science
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106361
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Laboratory rodent housing often fails to meet rodents' behavioral and physiological needs. We previously found that compared to well-resourced (often called 'enriched') housing, conventional cages increase mortality rates and the morbidity of stress-sensitive experimentally-induced diseases (anxiety, cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, stroke). This systematic review and meta-analysis updates and re-analyzes this dataset, and supplements it with an author survey (via protocol https://hdl.handle.net/10214/26983), to test the hypothesis that cages meeting more needs are better for rodent health. This hypothesis predicts that providing more types of resources ('enrichments' meeting different needs) will result in dose-dependent health benefits. We also explored whether this relationship was linear (such that each additional resource has equivalent value), or instead reflected diminishing welfare returns (perhaps even reaching a plateau), as a plausible alternative. Updating previous searches (May 24, 2020, updated May 6, 2022, via Ovid, CABI, Web of Science, Proquest, SCOPUS) yielded 1589 further publications. After screening for inclusion criteria (published in English, using mice or rats, and providing resources in long-term housing), this yielded 48 new articles, totaling 233 unique articles in the combined dataset (using 4953 mice, 2611 rats). Each beneficial resource type (additional space, burrowing substrates, chewing/gnawing materials, environmental complexity, foraging opportunities, fresh plant material or its odours, nesting material, shelters, sweet or high fat food, wheels) was given one point if added to well-resourced cages, up to a potential maximum of ten (with well-resourced cages in practice supplying 1–5 additional resources over control conditions). The prediction of dose-dependent benefits was met for disease morbidity: as more resource-types were supplied (compared to controls), health benefits linearly increased (F1,164= 9.12, p = 0.0029) Each additional resource increased the standardized mean difference by 0.11 (0.04–0.19). No such effect occurred for mortality (F1,13 = 0.59, p = 0.4565), but power here was low. Risk of bias (assessed using the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation 'SYRCLE' tool) in included studies was high; however, overall effects were large and confidence in the analysis was considered high. Providing multiple resources is thus important for rodent health: here, providing up to five additional resource-types (the maximum we could assess) steadily reduced morbidity. However, there was no evidence of diminishing returns (let alone plateau effects) over this range, and so additional resources should be supplied to further improve rodent health and welfare (and perhaps even reach asymptotic levels). This research was funded by NSERC and UFAW.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106361

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lack of social housing in rats impacts research results on drug trials, leading to problems with translation to humans and failures of replicability.

    “Lack of social housing in rats has been shown to impact research results on drug trials, leading to significant problems with translation to humans and failures of replicability [76].”

    From The social origins of consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [76]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 147 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Burn, C., & Popat, R. (2021). A tunnel is not enough: mice benefit from in-cage provision of a communal shelter as well as a handling tunnel. Animal Technology and Welfare. 20 (3), 203-210.
  2. Conceição, P., & Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: A Summary Review of the Literature. UNDP working paper.
  3. Hess, 2008, Home improvement: C57BL/6J mice given more naturalistic nesting materials build better nests, J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci., 47, 25
  4. Kaliste-Korhonen, 1995, Effects of gnawing material, group size and cage level in rack on Wistar rats, Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci., 22
  5. Makowska, 2016, The importance of burrowing, climbing and standing upright for laboratory rats. Royal Society Open, Science, 3
  6. Rücker, 2017, Methods for including information from multi-arm trials in pairwise meta-analysis. Research Synthesis, Methods, 8, 392
  7. Singleton, G., Dickman, C.R., & Stoddart, D.M. (2007). Rodents. In: Oxford University Press.
  8. Sterne, 2005, The funnel plot, Publ. bias meta-Anal.: Prev., Assess. Adjust., 75
  9. White, 2001, The use of laboratory animals in toxicologic research. HAYES, AW Princ. Methods Toxicol., 4, 773
  10. Wrightson, 1999, Diet restriction through hopper design, Anim. Technol., 50, 45

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cait, J., Winder, C. B., & Mason, G. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Guelph (CA)
  • Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
Corresponding author
Mason, Georgia J.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
278
Pages
106361
ISSN
0168-1591 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106361
OpenAlex
W4401009844
Cited by
21
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Animal Behaviour Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (145607139)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Keywords
laboratory animal welfare, rodent housing, cage enrichment, animal welfare, morbidity, mortality, mice, rats, dose-response relationship, behavioral needs, environmental enrichment, animal models of disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, stroke, nesting material, wheel running, foraging opportunities, high-fat diet, long-term housing, risk of bias assessment

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