ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Euthanasia Methods in Invertebrates: A Critical Narrative Review of Methodological and Welfare Standards.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Towards Bioethical and Functional Standards in the Slaughter Methods of Edible Insects: A Narrative Review.Insects · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.