Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41594412›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

Euthanasia Methods in Invertebrates: A Critical Narrative Review of Methodological and Welfare Standards.

Jaco Bakker, Melissa A de la Garza, Margot Morel, Anne H Outwater, John Chipangura, Job B G Stumpel, Francis Vercammen, Gregory A Lewbart, Remco A Nederlof

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Jaco BakkerAnimal Science Department, Biomedical Primate Research Centre, 2288 GJ Rijswijk, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6670-1887
Melissa A de la GarzaMichale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-4623-6360
Margot MorelBroadway Veterinary Group, Unit 1 The Links, Herne CT6 7FE, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-3560-9544
Anne H OutwaterDepartment of Community Health Nursing, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam 65001, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0003-2777-6530
John ChipanguraDepartment of Paraclinical Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-1252
Job B G StumpelWILDLANDS Adventure Zoo Emmen, 7801 BA Emmen, The Netherlands.
Francis VercammenCentre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, K. Astridplein 20-26, B-2018 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7064-4758
Gregory A LewbartCollege of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0716-1387
Remco A NederlofIndependent Researcher, 2861 XZ Bergambacht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-7253-8437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invertebrates are increasingly consumed and kept as pets, research models, and in zoological exhibits, creating a growing need to better understand their clinical management and welfare. However, the knowledge regarding nociception, pain perception, and euthanasia in invertebrates remains limited, and standardized protocols are largely absent. Current guidelines are incomplete, often anecdotal, and omit several major invertebrate phyla. To address this gap, we conducted a narrative review of the literature, aiming to critically evaluate existing euthanasia methods, associated welfare implications, and opportunities for refinement. The amount of peer-reviewed species-specific literature is limited and scattered. In addition, most described methods are insufficiently studied and/or do not align with our definition of euthanasia. Based on the available literature, and to provide practical guidance despite these limitations, we propose a two-step approach to invertebrate euthanasia. The first step consists of inducing anesthesia to achieve loss of responsiveness, followed by a second step; a terminal procedure involving physical or chemical destruction of the brain or major ganglia. Our review focuses on the application of this two-step approach. The effectiveness and humaneness of euthanasia techniques vary considerably across taxa and life stages. Substantial further research is required to validate and optimize humane end-of-life procedures for diverse invertebrate species.

Indexed as

culture of careethicseuthanasiaguidelinesinvertebrateskillingpainwelfare

Identifiers

PMID41594412
PMCPMC12838165

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.