PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15703123

Performance evaluation of IVC systems.

H Brandstetter·M Scheer·C Heinekamp·C Gippner-Steppert·O Loge·L Ruprecht·B Thull·R Wagner·P Wilhelm·H-P Scheuber·Working Group on Evaluation of IVC Systems of the Animal Welfare Information Center for Biomedical Research of the Faculty of Medicine
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An expert Working Group was set up in December 2000 to develop recommendations for users and industry on the evaluation of proper function and operation of individually ventilated cage (IVC) systems. The full report of their recommendations is in two parts--'Part 1: Test Instructions' and 'Part 2: Evaluation Criteria'--both of which have been published in full on the Laboratory Animals Ltd website. They can be found at http://www.lal.org.uk/IVC/index.html. Evaluation of and feedback on the recommendations to further refine their use and scientific basis is encouraged. This Summary Report provides a brief overview of the background to the development of the full report and the issues it addresses.

Explore related subjects

Animal WelfareAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryHousing, AnimalVentilationEvaluation StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Brandstetter, M Scheer, C Heinekamp, C Gippner-Steppert, O Loge, L Ruprecht, B Thull, R Wagner, P Wilhelm, H-P Scheuber, Working Group on Evaluation of IVC Systems of the Animal Welfare Information Center for Biomedical Research of the Faculty of Medicine. 2005. Performance evaluation of IVC systems.. https://doi.org/10.1258/0023677052886475

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

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↗