Cited by 648Animal testing and alternativesMicrobial infections and disease researchAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, guinea pig and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units

Open access
FELASA working group on revision of guidelines for health monitoring of rodents and rabbits, Mähler (Convenor), M, Berard, M, Feinstein, R, Gallagher, A, Illgen-Wilcke, B, Pritchett-Corning, K, Raspa, M·2014·Laboratory Animals

Abstract

The microbiological quality of experimental animals can critically influence animal welfare and the validity and reproducibility of research data. It is therefore important for breeding and experimental facilities to establish a laboratory animal health monitoring (HM) programme as an integrated part of any quality assurance system. FELASA has published recommendations for the HM of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units (Nicklas et al. Laboratory Animals, 2002), with the intention of harmonizing HM programmes. As stated in the preamble, these recommendations need to be adapted periodically to meet current developments in laboratory animal medicine. Accordingly, previous recommendations have been revised and shall be replaced by the present recommendations. These recommendations are aimed at all breeders and users of laboratory mice, rats, Syrian hamsters, guinea pigs and rabbits as well as diagnostic laboratories. They describe essential aspects of HM, such as the choice of agents, selection of animals and tissues for testing, frequency of sampling, commonly used test methods, interpretation of results and HM reporting. Compared with previous recommendations, more emphasis is put on the role of a person with sufficient understanding of the principles of HM, opportunistic agents, the use of sentinel animals (particularly under conditions of cage-level containment) and the interpretation and reporting of HM results. Relevant agents, testing frequencies and literature references are updated. Supplementary information on specific agents and the number of animals to be monitored and an example of a HM programme description is provided in the appendices.

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 · 10.1177/0023677213516312

Cites

381 of 381 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The animals' provenance, health or immune status, and history of previous testing or procedures can influence their physiology and behaviour, as well as their response to treatments, and thus impact on study outcomes.

    “The animals’ provenance, their health or immune status, and their history of previous testing or procedures can influence their physiology and behaviour, as well as their response to treatments, and thus impact on study outcomes.”

    From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [112]

    The paper’s introductory passage (indexed as Abstract; page not given) says infections can affect animals’ physiology, including behaviour and immune response, and can confound experimental results. Its health-monitoring discussion also considers immune status and the health history of the facility of origin. It does not establish that previous testing or procedures alter animals’ physiology, behaviour, or responses to treatments. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The immune or microbiological status of the animals can influence welfare, experimental variability, and scientific outcomes.

    “The immune or microbiological status of the animals can also influence welfare, experimental variability, and scientific outcomes [112–114].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 382 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Nicklas W, 1993, Lab Anim Sci, 43, 296
  2. Koszdin KL, 2002, Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci, 41, 18
  3. Ike F, 2007, Comp Med, 57, 272
  4. Berard M, 2009, Comp Med, 59, 187
  5. Liang CT, 2009, J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci, 48, 381
  6. Nicklas W, 1988, Lab Anim Sci, 38, 152
  7. Agca Y, 2007, Comp Med, 57, 51
  8. Lipman NS, 2000, Comp Med, 50, 426
  9. Labelle P, 2009, Comp Med, 59, 180
  10. ILAR. Committee on Long-Term Holding of Laboratory Rodents, 1976, ILAR News, 19, L1
  11. Dubin S, 1991, Lab Anim (NY), 20, 29
  12. Besselsen DG, 2000, Comp Med, 50, 498
  13. Janus LM, 2008, Comp Med, 58, 360
  14. Thomas ML, 2007, Comp Med, 57, 74
  15. Compton SR, 2004, Comp Med, 54, 382
  16. Smith PC, 2007, Comp Med, 57, 90
  17. Feinstein RE, 2011, Handbook of laboratory animal science, Vol. 1, Essential principles and practices, 613
  18. Boot R, 2001, Scand J Lab Anim Sci, 28, 2
  19. Besselsen DG, 2007, Comp Med, 57, 66

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
FELASA working group on revision of guidelines for health monitoring of rodents and rabbits, Mähler (Convenor), M., Berard, M., Feinstein, R., Gallagher, A., Illgen-Wilcke, B., Pritchett-Corning, K., & Raspa, M.
Affiliations
  • GV-SOLAS, Gesellschaft für Versuchstierkunde
  • Swedish Veterinary Agency (SE)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • AALAS, American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
  • National Research Council (IT)
Venue
Laboratory Animals
Published
2014-02-04
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
178-192
ISSN
  • 0023-6772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1117
OpenAlex
W2153218957
Cited by
646
References
382
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 1
FWCI
51.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Laboratory Animals (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
laboratory animal health monitoring, sentinel animals, opportunistic pathogens, laboratory mice, laboratory rats, golden hamster, guinea pig, rabbits, laboratory animal medicine

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