Cited by 67Animal testing and alternativesAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia

The extended welfare assessment grid: a matrix for the assessment of welfare and cumulative suffering in experimental animals

Honess, Paul, Wolfensohn, Sarah·2010·Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Abstract

Combining a range of assessment parameters into one usable entity has been identified as an important goal in providing a practical, objective and robust assessment of welfare, particularly in laboratory animals. This paper refines and extends one such previously published method. The proposed Extended Welfare Assessment Grid provides for the incorporation of changes in the state of an animal over time, allowing for predictive, retrospective, scheduled, or event monitoring. It enables the numeric, as well as visual, representation of the animal's welfare, placing this in the context of the careful and realistic justification for experimental use of the animal. This assessment method represents a valuable tool for those tasked with ensuring ethical oversight, as well as for those planning the use, or monitoring, of animals in research. It is particularly applicable to animals used in long-term studies, especially non-human primates. It is believed that this system will draw attention to the temporal component of suffering that is often overlooked in the planning of research schedules and allow an assessment of cumulative suffering imposed by the events that occur.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/026119291003800304

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • AWAG was developed for assessing the welfare of primates in research institutions but has since been adapted for birds, western lowland gorillas, giraffes, scimitar-horned oryx, and large felids.

    “AWAG was developed for assessing the welfare of primates in research institutions (69, 90) but has since been adapted for birds (91), western lowland gorillas (92), giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis), scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), and large felids (tigers, leopards, and cheetahs) (26).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Honess, P., & Wolfensohn, S.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Honess, Paul
Venue
Alternatives to Laboratory Animals
Published
2010-06
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
205-212
ISSN
  • 0261-1929 (ISSN-L)
  • 2632-3559
OpenAlex
W2398949648
Cited by
67
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Keywords
animal welfare assessment, laboratory animals, non-human primates, retrospective monitoring, research ethics oversight
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Laboratory, Research Design, Stress, Psychological, Animal Experimentation

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