Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:34:14.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health Technology Assessment as a template for assessments in laboratory animal science with a focus on phenotyping protocols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Thon ,
M Ritskes-Hoitinga  and
H Vondeling
R Thon*
Affiliation:
PixieGene A/S, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, 1609 Copenhagen, Denmark
M Ritskes-Hoitinga
Affiliation:
Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
H Vondeling
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health, Department of Health Economics and Centre for Applied Health Services Research and Technology Assessment, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study introduces Health Technology Assessment (HTA) — a systematic, evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach to assessing human health technologies, aimed at supporting decision-making in health policy and clinical practice — into laboratory animal science. A conceptual presentation is provided on how the assessment concept of HTA can be adapted to procedures in laboratory animal science (LAS), using phenotyping of mutant mice as an example of how decision-making in this particular setting can be supported. Since a full HTA can be a comprehensive task, a limited version, the Mini-HTA, is introduced, and a proposal for an adapted Mini-HTA form of assessment of phenotyping protocols is presented. It is the conclusion of this study that the principles of HTA could improve the decision-making process, resulting in increased validity of scientific results and animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfaredecision support toolhealth technology assessment (HTA)laboratory animal sciencemutant micephenotyping protocols
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 93 - 100
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Banta, D 2003 The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63: 121–132CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, GP, Schultheis, PJ, Shull, GE and Stemmermann, GN 2000 Variant form of diffuse corporal gastritis in NHE2 knockout mice. Comparative Medicine 59: 511–551Google Scholar
Brown SDM, Chambon P, Hrabe de Angelis M and the EUMORPHIA Consortium 2005 EMPReSS: standardized phenotype screens for functional annotation of the mouse genome. Nature Genetics 37: 1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA) 2005 Introduction to Mini-HTA - a Management and Decision Support Tool for the Hospital Service. DACEHTA: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Douw, K and Vondeling, H 2007 Selecting new health technologies for evaluation: Can clinical experts predict which new anticancer drugs will impact Danish health care? Social Science & Medicine 64: 283–286CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehlers, L, Vestergaard, M, Kidholm, K, Bonnevie, B, Pedersen, PH, Jorgensen, T, Jensen, MF and Kristensen, FB and Kjilby, M 2006 Doing mini-health technology assessments in hospitals: A new concept of decision support in health care? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 22: 295–301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jegstrup, IM, Thon, R, Hansen, AK and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2003 Characterization of transgenic mice - a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotype characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37: 1–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knottnerus, JA and Muris, JW 2003 Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56: 1118–1128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, FB and Sigmund, H 2007 Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Mertens, C and Rülicke, T 1999 Score sheets for the monitoring of transgenic mice. Animal Welfare 8: 433–438Google Scholar
Mertens, C and Rülicke, T 2000 A comprehensive form for the standardized characterization of transgenic rodents: genotype, phenotype, welfare assessment, recommendations for refinement. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 17: 15–21Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, E, Dingwall, R, Greatbatch, D, Parker, S and Watson, P 1998 Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment 2: 16Google ScholarPubMed
NC3Rs 2006 Full report of GA mouse welfare assessment working group. Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice. http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=356&page=231&skin=0Google Scholar
Rogers, DC, Fisher, EMC, Brown, SDM, Peters, J, Hunter, AJ and Martin, JE 1997 Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment. Mammalian Genome 8: 711–713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thon, R, Lassen, J, Hansen, AK, Jegstrup, IM and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2002 Welfare evaluation of genetically modified mice - An inventory study of reports to the Danish Animal Experiments Inspectorate. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 29: 45–53Google Scholar
Thon, R, Vondeling, H, Lassen, J, Hansen, AK, and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2009 An interview study of phenotypic characterization of genetically modified mice. Laboratory Animals 43: 278–283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Meer, M, Costa, P, Baumans, V, Olivier, B and van Zutphen, B 1999 Welfare assessment of transgenic animals: behavioural responses and morphological development of newborn mice. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 27: 857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vondeling, H 2004 Economic evaluation of integrated care: an introduction. International Journal of Integrated Care 4: 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed