Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Feb 14:11:1328098.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1328098. eCollection 2024.

Uncontrolled pain: a call for better study design

Affiliations
Review

Uncontrolled pain: a call for better study design

Timothy H Hyndman et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Studies assessing animal pain in veterinary research are often performed primarily for the benefit of animals. Frequently, the goal of these studies is to determine whether the analgesic effect of a novel treatment is clinically meaningful, and therefore has the capacity to improve the welfare of treated animals. To determine the treatment effect of a potential analgesic, control groups are necessary to allow comparison. There are negative control groups (where pain is unattenuated) and positive control groups (where pain is attenuated). Arising out of animal welfare concerns, there is growing reluctance to use negative control groups in pain studies. But for studies where pain is experimentally induced, the absence of a negative control group removes the opportunity to demonstrate that the study methods could differentiate a positive control intervention from doing nothing at all. For studies that are controlled by a single comparison group, the capacity to distinguish treatment effects from experimental noise is more difficult; especially considering that pain studies often involve small sample sizes, small and variable treatment effects, systematic error and use pain assessment measures that are unreliable. Due to these limitations, and with a focus on farm animals, we argue that many pain studies would be enhanced by the simultaneous inclusion of positive and negative control groups. This would help provide study-specific definitions of pain and pain attenuation, thereby permitting more reliable estimates of treatment effects. Adoption of our suggested refinements could improve animal welfare outcomes for millions of animals globally.

Keywords: analgesia; animal ethics; farm animals; randomized controlled trials; study design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pain studies may experimentally-induce pain or utilize pain that is already present. Examples or categories of each pain source are provided in italic font.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A–D) Interpretations for hypothetical scenarios where the outcome measure of pain in the experimental group (represented as arrows to reflect confidence intervals) exceeds, is no different, or is below the confidence interval of the outcome measure of pain in the control group(s). Interpretations are included in grey text boxes that overlay each plot and are made in the context of whether the study has a negative control group only (plot A), a positive control group only (B), negative and positive control groups that have non-overlapping results (C), or negative and positive control groups with results that overlap (D). The confidence intervals are assumed to be constructed such if they do not overlap then this indicates a statistically significant difference.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Retnam L, Chatikavanij P, Kunjara P, Paramastri YA, Goh YM, Hussein FN, et al. . Laws, regulations, guidelines and standards for animal care and use for scientific purposes in the countries of Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. ILAR J. (2016) 57:312–23. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilw038, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hampton JO, Hyndman TH. Underaddressed animal-welfare issues in conservation. Conserv Biol. (2019) 33:803–11. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13267, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Palmer C, Fischer B, Gamborg C, Hampton JO, Sandoøe P. Wildlife research: Toe-clipping. Wildlife ethics: Ethics in wildlife management and conservation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. (2023). 216–229.
    1. Alberthsen C, Waudby HP, Wilkinson LL, Lunney D, Bathurst M, Smith BP. Animal ethics committees In: Smith BP, Waudby HP, Alberthsen CA, Hampton JO, editors. Wildlife research in Australia: Practical and applied methods. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO; (2022). 19–28.
    1. Taylor P, Meyer RE. Veterinary clinical research or experiments on pets. Vet Anaesth Analg. (2023) 50:383–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2023.07.006 - DOI - PubMed