PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14676679

Humane endpoints in shock research.

Abstract

In biomedical research using animal models, the phrase "humane endpoints" refers to predetermined criteria used to judge when the research animals should be humanely euthanized. The intended goal of humane endpoints is to minimize the distress or suffering of research animals; however, if applied incorrectly, this well-intended concept could lead to premature decisions and inaccurate data, resulting in a waste of animal life. A concensus on specific endpoints for shock and inflammation research is not available but several biochemical, physical and behavioral parameters have been suggested for other research models. In addition, the authors have found, in the studies presented here, that increasing body weight, decreased body temperature, and inability to ambulate are important parameters in a model of cecal ligation and puncture. However, it is clear that the applicability of these endpoints may change with the model of disease, intensity of insults, experimental treatments and other factors. Consequently, humane endpoints should be assigned cautiously and preferably after preliminary studies to prevent aberrant research results. In order to accomplish this, investigators must become aware of certain concepts including: when to implement endpoints, what endpoints to consider, and how to establish the endpoints for their studies. Equipped with the basic principles of humane endpoints, investigators can make informed decisions that meet current standards of animal care while still achieving the scientific goals of their research studies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jean A Nemzek, Hong-Yan Xiao, Anne E Minard, Gerald L Bolgos, Daniel G Remick. 2004. Humane endpoints in shock research.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.shk.0000101667.49265.fd

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗