Literature DB >> 19678731

Assessing the search for and implementation of the Three Rs: a survey among scientists.

Marlies Leenaars1, Bart Savenije, Anne Nagtegaal, Lilian van der Vaart, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga.   

Abstract

A survey among scientists into the current practice of searching for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (Three Rs) alternatives, highlights the gap between the statutory required need to apply the Three Rs concept whenever possible and the lack of criteria for searching for Three Rs alternatives. A questionnaire was distributed to 342 scientists (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations [FELASA] Category C and B individuals), of which 67 responded. These scientists are customers of the Central Animal Laboratory of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. The results indicate that there is room for improvement in searching effectively for the Three Rs: skills in searching biomedical databases for Three Rs alternatives are limited, knowledge of specialised Three Rs databases is very limited, and satisfaction on the availability and accessibility of Three Rs information is low. None of the respondents allocate budget for a specific Three Rs alternatives search, although 50% do spend, on average, two hours engaged in this search for each application to their animal ethics committees. The majority of the respondents expressed the wish that the search for alternatives could be easier and less time consuming, and prefer to achieve this through the service offered by specialists at the Central Animal Laboratory. On the basis of the results from the questionnaire, the 3R Research Centre was established, with the aim of providing services and support for biomedical scientists, to improve the search for, and subsequent implementation of, the Three Rs. 2009 FRAME.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19678731     DOI: 10.1177/026119290903700312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Altern Lab Anim        ISSN: 0261-1929            Impact factor:   1.303


  9 in total

1.  The evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India.

Authors:  Kathryn Bayne; Gudde S Ramachandra; Ekaterina A Rivera; Jianfei Wang
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  Importance of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Animal Studies: Challenges for Animal-to-Human Translation.

Authors:  Zahra Bahadoran; Parvin Mirmiran; Khosrow Kashfi; Asghar Ghasemi
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.

Authors:  Nicole Fenwick; Peter Danielson; Gilly Griffin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies.

Authors:  Marlies Leenaars; Carlijn R Hooijmans; Nieky van Veggel; Gerben ter Riet; Mariska Leeflang; Lotty Hooft; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Alice Tillema; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 2.471

5.  Escalated handling of young C57BL/6 mice results in altered Morris water maze performance.

Authors:  Gudrun Andrea Fridgeirsdottir; Lars Hillered; Fredrik Clausen
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 2.384

Review 6.  Promoting and improving three Rs practice: the Korean guidelines.

Authors:  Byung In Choe; Gwi Hyang Lee
Journal:  BMB Rep       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.778

7.  Animal experimental research design in critical care.

Authors:  Justin S Merkow; Janine M Hoerauf; Angela F Moss; Jason Brainard; Lena M Mayes; Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson; Karsten Bartels
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Assessing the application of the 3Rs: a survey among animal welfare officers in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Judith van Luijk; Yvonne Cuijpers; Lilian van der Vaart; Tineke Coenen de Roo; Marlies Leenaars; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.471

9.  Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden.

Authors:  Svea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin M Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.