Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41500529›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2026

Social Housing of Postoperative Animals to Support Animal Welfare.

Amanda Darbyshire, Jennifer Beninson, Melissa C Dyson, Lindsey Ferguson, Julie Freebersyser, Melanie McFadden, Jennifer Mitchell, Nicolette Petervary, Stacy Pritt, William S Stokes and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Amanda Darbyshire1Department of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Jennifer Beninson2Division of Research and Economic Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
Melissa C Dyson3Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lindsey Ferguson4School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Julie Freebersyser5Charles River Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Melanie McFadden6Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer Mitchell7MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nicolette Petervary8Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Stacy Pritt9Vice Chancellor for Research Office, Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.
William S Stokes10National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service (retired), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Joshua M Taylor11Division of Comparative Medicine, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, Oregon.
Tracy H Vemulapalli12Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Kathleen R Pritchett-Corning13Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single housing of animals, or social isolation, is a known stressor for many species. Generally, laboratory animals are housed in social groups as a default to support their behavioral welfare. In some research protocols, investigators may request exemptions from social housing policies after surgical procedures due to concerns that cohoused animals may damage implanted devices, remove each other's wound closures, or cause other stress or injury that may interfere with the study. However, the practice of singly housing postoperative animals may result in greater stress for animals and unintended consequences for research being conducted. Therefore, the IACUC or relevant ethical body should judiciously consider any request for single housing and require adequate justification for making this exception. This review discusses the social nature of some common research animals, the research effects of single housing, the regulatory requirements for social housing, and successful cases of socially housing postoperative and/or instrumented animals in the research setting with the goal of promoting social housing of postoperative animals.

Identifiers

PMID41500529
PMCPMC12878842

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.