The Open Field Test as a Tool for Behaviour Analysis in Pigs: Recommendations for Set-Up Standardization – A Systematic Review

European Surgical Research

Schulz M.Zieglowski L.Kopaczka M.b· Tolba R.H.a

Author affiliations

aInstitute of Laboratory Animal Science and Experimental Surgery, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
bInstitute of Imaging & Computer Vision, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Systematic Review

Received: July 10, 2021
Accepted: June 14, 2022
Published online: June 22, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 20
Number of Figures: 12
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0014-312X (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9921 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ESR

Abstract

Introduction: The open field test (OFT) is a common tool to assess anxiety and behavioural changes in rodents. It has been adapted to pigs with no systematic investigation of how environmental changes may alter the performance of pigs. Currently, the number of published studies including the OFT in domestic pig models is increasing without standardization. Methods: Our review aimed to investigate the open field (OF) set-ups in published studies and the similarities between performance and published parameters. Results: Following the PRISMA guidelines for reviews, we selected 69 studies for inclusion in this systematic review. We determined the specific set-up conditions such as dimensions, duration, and time of day for most of the included studies; we found high variability across studies with respect to these test specifics. Discussion: Our results indicate the inconsistent implementation of the set-up, including dimensions, timing, parameters, and additional combined tests (e.g., new object tests). Based on our findings, we have made recommendations for the performance of the OFT, according to the current literature.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Hall CS. Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. J Comp Psychol. 1934;18(3):385–403. Royce JR. On the construct validity of open-field measures. Psychol Bull. 1977;84(6):1098–106. Ohl F. Testing for anxiety. Clin Neurosci Res. 2003;3(4–5):233–8. Walsh RN, Cummins RA. The open-field test: a critical review. Psychol Bull. 1976;83(3):482–504. Tatem KS, Quinn JL, Phadke A, Yu Q, Gordish-Dressman H, Nagaraju K. Behavioral and locomotor measurements using an open field activity monitoring system for skeletal muscle diseases. J Vis Exp. 2014;91:51785. Rodgers RJ. Animal models of “anxiety”: where next? Behav Pharmacol. 1997;8(6):477–96; discussion 97–504. Prut L, Belzung C. The open field as a paradigm to measure the effects of drugs on anxiety-like behaviors: a review. Eur J Pharmacol. 2003;463(1–3):3–33. Broadhurst PL. Determinants of emotionality in rat: I. Situational factors. Br J Psychol. 1957;48(1):1–12. Sarkar D. A review of behavioral tests to evaluate different types of anxiety and anti-anxiety effects. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2020;18(3):341–51. Beilharz RG, Cox DF. Genetic analysis of open field behavior in Swine1. J Anim Sci. 1967;26(5):988–90. Murphy E, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. A review of behavioural methods to study emotion and mood in pigs, Sus scrofa. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2014;159:9–28. Thurfjell H, Ball JP, Åhlén P-A, Kornacher P, Dettki H, Sjöberg K. Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges. Eur J Wildl Res. 2009;55(5):517–23. Ralph C, Hebart M, Cronin GM. Enrichment in the sucker and weaner phase altered the performance of pigs in three behavioural tests. Animals. 2018;8(5):74. Tatemoto P, Bernardino T, Alves L, Zanella AJ. Sham-chewing in sows is associated with decreased fear responses in their offspring. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:390. Haigh A, Chou JY, O’Driscoll K. Variations in the behavior of pigs during an open field and novel object test. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:607. Luna D, González C, Byrd CJ, Palomo R, Huenul E, Figueroa J. Do domestic pigs acquire a positive perception of humans through observational social learning? Animals. 2021;11(1):127. Donald RD, Healy SD, Lawrence AB, Rutherford KM. Emotionality in growing pigs: is the open field a valid test? Physiol Behav. 2011;104(5):906–13. Forkman B, Boissy A, Meunier-Salaün MC, Canali E, Jones RB. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol Behav. 2007;92(3):340–74. Jensen KH, Pedersen LJ, Hageisø AMG, Heller KE, Jorgensen E, Ladewig J. Intermittent stress in pigs: behavioural and pituitary-adrenocortical reactivity. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci. 1995;45(4):276–85. Spoolder HAM, Burbidge JA, Lawrence AB, Simmins PH, Edwards SA. Individual behavioural differences in pigs: intra- and inter-test consistency. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;49(2):185–98. Krugmann K, Warnken F, Krieter J, Czycholl I. Are behavioral tests capable of measuring positive affective states in growing pigs? Animals. 2019;9(5):274. Wegner B, Spiekermeier I, Nienhoff H, Große-Kleimann J, Rohn K, Meyer H, et al. Application of the voluntary human approach test on commercial pig fattening farms: a meaningful tool? Porcine Health Manag. 2020;6(1):19. Miura A, Tanida H, Tanaka T, Yoshimoto T. The influence of human posture and movement on the approach and escape behaviour of weanling pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;49(3):247–56. Barone F, Nannoni E, Elmi A, Lambertini C, Scorpio DG, Ventrella D, et al. Behavioral assessment of vision in pigs. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2018;57(4):350–6. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):43. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. Fàbrega E, Diestre A, Font J, Carrin D, Velarde A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre JL, et al. Differences in open field behavior between heterozygous and homozygous negative gilts for the RYR(1) gene. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci. 2004;7(2):83–93. Kanitz E, Tuchscherer M, Otten W, Tuchscherer A, Zebunke M, Puppe B. Coping style of pigs is associated with different behavioral, neurobiological and immune responses to stressful challenges. Front Behav Neurosci. 2019;13:173. Herskin MS, Jensen KH. Effects of open field testing and associated handling v. handling alone on the adrenocortical reactivity of piglets around weaning. Anim Sci. 2002;74(3):485–91. Kinder HA, Baker EW, Howerth EW, Duberstein KJ, West FD. Controlled cortical impact leads to cognitive and motor function deficits that correspond to cellular pathology in a piglet traumatic brain injury model. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(19):2810–26. Kanitz E, Tuchscherer M, Puppe B, Tuchscherer A, Stabenow B. Consequences of repeated early isolation in domestic piglets (Sus scrofa) on their behavioural, neuroendocrine, and immunological responses. Brain Behav Immun. 2004;18(1):35–45. Leliveld LMG, Dupjan S, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B. Vocal correlates of emotional reactivity within and across contexts in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Physiol Behav. 2017;181:117–26. Kulikov VA, Khotskin NV, Nikitin SV, Lankin VS, Kulikov AV, Trapezov OV. Application of 3-D imaging sensor for tracking minipigs in the open field test. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;235:219–25. Magnani D, Cafazzo S, Calà P, Costa LN. Searching for differences in the behavioural response of piglet groups subjected to novel situations. Behav Processes. 2012;89(1):68–73. Laferriere A, Ertug F, Moss IR. Prenatal cocaine alters open-field behavior in young swine. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995;17(2):81–7. Meijer E, van Nes A, Back W, van der Staay FJ. Clinical effects of buprenorphine on open field behaviour and gait symmetry in healthy and lame weaned piglets. Vet J. 2015;206(3):298–303. Lind NM, Vinther M, Hemmingsen RP, Hansen AK. Validation of a digital video tracking system for recording pig locomotor behaviour. J Neurosci Methods. 2005;143(2):123–32. Meuniersalaun MC, Monnier M, Colleaux Y, Seve B, Henry Y. Impact of dietary tryptophan and behavioral type on behavior, plasma cortisol, and brain metabolites of young pigs. J Anim Sci. 1991;69(9):3689–98. Holme Nielsen C, Bladt Brandt A, Thymann T, Obelitz-Ryom K, Jiang P, Vanden Hole C, et al. Rapid postnatal adaptation of neurodevelopment in pigs born late preterm. Dev Neurosci. 2019;40(5–6):586–600. Mosnier E, Dourmad JY, Etienne M, Le Floc’h N, Pere MC, Ramaekers P, et al. Feed intake in the multiparous lactating sow: its relationship with reactivity during gestation and tryptophan status. J Anim Sci. 2009;87(4):1282–91. Otten W, Kanitz E, Tuchscherer M, Puppe B, Nurnberg G. Repeated administrations of adrenocorticotropic hormone during gestation in gilts: effects on growth, behaviour and immune responses of their piglets. Livest Sci. 2007;106(2–3):261–70. Pearce GP, Paterson AM. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1993;36(1):11–28. Sumner BEH, D’Eath RB, Farnworth MJ, Robson S, Russell JA, Lawrence AB, et al. Early weaning results in less active behaviour, accompanied by lower 5-HT1A and higher 5-HT2A receptor mRNA expression in specific brain regions of female pigs. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2008;33(8):1077–92. Taylor L, Friend TH. Open-field test behavior of growing swine maintained on a concrete floor and a pasture. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1986;16(2):143–8. Rutherford KMD, Donald RD, Lawrence AB, Wemelsfelder F. Qualitative behavioural assessment of emotionality in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2012;139(3–4):218–24. Thodberg K, Jensen KH, Herskin MS. A general reaction pattern across situations in prepubertal gilts. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999;63(2):103–19. Rutherford KMD, Haskell MJ, Glasbey C, Lawrence AB. The responses of growing pigs to a chronic-intermittent stress treatment. Physiol Behav. 2006;89(5):670–80. Von Borell E, Ladewig J. Relationship between behaviour and adrenocortical response pattern in domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1992;34(3):195–206. Beattie VE, Walker N, Sneddon IA. Effect of rearing environment and change of environment on the behaviour of gilts. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995;46(1–2):57–65. Stracke J, Otten W, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B, Dupjan S. Serotonin depletion induces pessimistic-like behavior in a cognitive bias paradigm in pigs. Physiol Behav. 2017;174:18–26. 6. Dexter JD, Tumbleson ME, Decker JD, Middleton CC. Fetal alcohol syndrome in sinclair(S-l) miniature swine. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1980;4(2):146–51. Stracke J, Otten W, Tuchscherer A, Witthahn M, Metges CC, Puppe B, et al. Dietary tryptophan supplementation and affective state in pigs. J Vet Behav. 2017;20:82–90. Jones R, Nicol CJ. A note on the effect of control of the thermal environment on the well-being of growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;60(1):1–9. Sullivan S, Friess SH, Ralston J, Smith C, Propert KJ, Rapp PE, et al. Improved behavior, motor, and cognition assessments in neonatal piglets. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(20):1770–9. Loijens LWS, Schouten WGP, Wiepkema PR, Wiegant VM. Brain opioid receptor density reflects behavioral and heart rate responses in pigs. Physiol Behav. 2002;76(4–5):579–87. van Der Staay FJ, Pouzet B, Mahieu M, Nordquist RE, Schuurman T. The d-amphetamine-treated Göttingen miniature pig: an animal model for assessing behavioral effects of antipsychotics. Psychopharmacology. 2009;206(4):715–29. Pond WG, Mersmann HJ, Su DR, McGlone JJ, Wheeler MB, Smith EO. Neonatal dietary cholesterol and Alleles of cholesterol 7-alpha hydroxylase affect piglet cerebrum weight, cholesterol concentration and behavior. J Nutr. 2008;138(2):282–6. von Borell E, Hurnik JF. Stereotypic behavior, adrenocortical function, and open field behavior of individually confined gestating sows. Physiol Behav. 1991;49(4):709–13. Siegford JM, Rucker G, Zanella AJ. Effects of pre-weaning exposure to a maze on stress responses in pigs at weaning and on subsequent performance in spatial and fear-related tests. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008;110(1–2):189–202. von Borell E, Bünger B, Schmidt T, Horn T. Vocal-type classification as a tool to identify stress in piglets under on-farm conditions. Anim Welf. 2009;18(4):407–16. Taylor L, Friend TH. Effect of housing on open-field test behavior of gestating gilts. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1987;17(1–2):83–93. Zebunke M, Puppe B, Langbein J. Effects of cognitive enrichment on behavioural and physiological reactions of pigs. Physiol Behav. 2013;118:70–9. Weaver SA, Aherne FX, Meaney MJ, Schaefer AL, Dixon WT. Neonatal handling permanently alters hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal axis function, behaviour, and body weight in boars. J Endocrinol. 2000;164(3):349–59. Zebunke M, Nurnberg G, Melzer N, Puppe B. The backtest in pigs revisited-Inter-situational behaviour and animal classification. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2017;194:7–13. Andersen IL, Boe KE, Fœrevik G, Janczak AM, Bakken M. Behavioural evaluation of methods for assessing fear responses in weaned pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000;69(3):227–40. Zhong M, Shoemake C, Fuller A, White D, Hanks C, Brocksmith D, et al. Development of a functional observational battery in the minipig for regulatory neurotoxicity assessments. Int J Toxicol. 2017;36(2):113–23. Andersen IL, Færevik G, Boe KE, Janczak AM, Bakken M. Effects of diazepam on the behaviour of weaned pigs in three putative models of anxiety. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000;68(2):121–30. Amory JR, Pearce GP. Alarm pheromones in urine modify the behaviour of weaner pigs. Anim Welf. 2000;9(2):167–75. Bernardino T, Tatemoto P, Morrone B, Mazza Rodrigues PH, Zanella AJ. Piglets born from sows fed high fibre diets during pregnancy are less aggressive prior to weaning. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167363. 3. Clouard C, Gerrits WJJ, Kemp B, Val-Laillet D, Bolhuis JE. Perinatal exposure to a diet high in saturated fat, refined sugar and cholesterol affects behaviour, growth, and feed intake in weaned piglets. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154698. Brajon S, Laforest JP, Schmitt O, Devillers N. A preliminary study of the effects of individual response to challenge tests and stress induced by humans on learning performance of weaned piglets (Sus scrofa). Behav Processes. 2016;129:27–36. Dalmau A, Fabrega E, Velarde A. Fear assessment in pigs exposed to a novel object test. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009;117(3–4):173–80. Castel D, Sabbag I, Nasaev E, Peng S, Meilin S. Open field and a behavior score in PNT model for neuropathic pain in pigs. J Pain Res. 2018;11:2279–93. de Oliveira D, Paranhos da Costa MJ, Zupan M, Rehn T, Keeling LJ. Early human handling in non-weaned piglets: effects on behaviour and body weight. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015;164:56–63. Clouard C, Gerrits WJJ, van Kerkhof I, Smink W, Bolhuis JE. Dietary linoleic and α-linolenic acids affect anxiety-related responses and exploratory activity in growing pigs. J Nutr. 2015;145(2):358–64. 8. Horback KM, Parsons TD. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal. 2016;10(8):1351–9. Fijn L, Antonides A, Aalderink D, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. Does litter size affect emotionality, spatial learning and memory in piglets? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016;178:23–31. Lind NM, Arnfred SM, Hemmingsen RP, Hansen K, Jensen KH. Open field behaviour and reaction to novelty in Gottingen minipigs: Effects of amphetamine and haloperidol. Scand J Lab Anim Sci. 2005;32(2):103–12. Gieling ET, Antonides A, Fink-Gremmels J, Ter Haar K, Kuller WI, Meijer E, et al. Chronic allopurinol treatment during the last trimester of pregnancy in sows: effects on low and normal birth weight offspring. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86396. Puppe B, Ernst K, Schon PC, Manteuffel G. Cognitive enrichment affects behavioural reactivity in domestic pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;105(1–3):75–86. Hessing MJC, Hagelso AM, Schouten WGP, Wiepkema PR, Vanbeek JAM. Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiol Behav. 1994;55(1):39–46. Scott K, Laws DM, Courboulay V, Meunier-Salaun MC, Edwards SA. Comparison of methods to assess fear of humans in sows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009;118(1–2):36–41. Horback KM, Parsons TD. Ontogeny of behavioral traits in commercial sows. Animal. 2018;12(11):2365–72. Sullivan S, Friess SH, Ralston J, Smith C, Propert KJ, Rapp PE, et al. Behavioral deficits and axonal injury persistence after rotational head injury are direction dependent. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(7):538–45. Val-Laillet D, Tallet C, Guerin C, Meunier-Salaun MC. Behavioural reactivity, social and cognitive abilities of Vietnamese and Pitman-Moore weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2013;148(1–2):108–19. Jones JB, Wathes CM, White RP, Jones RB. Do pigs find a familiar odourant attractive in novel surroundings? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000;70(2):115–26. Puppe B, Schon PC, Wendland K. Monitoring of piglets’ open field activity and choice behaviour during the replay of maternal vocalization: a comparison between Observer and PID technique. Lab Anim. 1999;33(3):215–20. Kanitz E, Hameister T, Tuchscherer M, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B. Social support attenuates the adverse consequences of social deprivation stress in domestic piglets. Horm Behav. 2014;65(3):203–10. Giroux S, Martineau GP, Robert S. Relationships between individual behavioural traits and post-weaning growth in segregated early-weaned piglets. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000;70(1):41–8. Kanitz E, Puppe B, Tuchscherer M, Heberer M, Viergutz T, Tuchscherer A. A single exposure to social isolation in domestic piglets activates behavioural arousal, neuroendocrine stress hormones, and stress-related gene expression in the brain. Physiol Behav. 2009;98(1–2):176–85. Margulies S, Sullivan S, Friess S, Ralston J, Smith C, Propert K, et al. Behavior, motor, and cognition assessments in neonatal piglets. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(10):A214–5. Beattie VE, O’Connell NE, Kilpatrick DJ, Moss BW. Influence of environmental enrichment on welfare-related behavioural and physiological parameters in growing pigs. Anim Sci. 2000;70(3):443–50. Leinonen H, Tanila H. Vision in laboratory rodents-Tools to measure it and implications for behavioral research. Behav Brain Res. 2018;352:172–82. Morin LP. A path to sleep is through the eye. eNeuro. 2015;2(2):ENEURO.0069-14.2015. Refinetti R, Kenagy GJ. Diurnally active rodents for laboratory research. Lab Anim. 2018;52(6):577–87. Caley P. Movements, activity patterns and habitat use of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a tropical habitat. Wildl Res. 1997;24(1):77. Russo L, Massei G, Genov P. Daily home range and activity of wild boar in a Mediterranean area free from hunting. Ethol Ecol Evol. 1997;9(3):287–94. Tanida H, Miura A, Tanaka T, Yoshimoto T. Behavioral responses of piglets to darkness and shadows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;49(2):173–83. Jensen P, Forkman B, Thodberg K, Koster E. Individual variation and consistency in piglet behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995;45(1–2):43–52. Studnitz M, Jensen MB, Pedersen LJ. Why do pigs root and in what will they root? A review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;107(3–4):183–97. Yoon DY, Mansukhani NA, Stubbs VC, Helenowski IB, Woodruff TK, Kibbe MR. Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery. 2014;156(3):508–16. Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):565–72. Howard LM, Ehrlich AM, Gamlen F, Oram S. Gender-neutral mental health research is sex and gender biased. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(1):9–11. Andresen Ø. Boar taint related compounds: androstenone/skatole/other substances. Acta Vet Scand. 2006;48(S1):S5. Sødring M, Nafstad O, Håseth TT. Change in Norwegian consumer attitudes towards piglet castration: increased emphasis on animal welfare. Acta Vet Scand. 2020;62(1):22. Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin GM, Tilbrook AJ. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. N Z Vet J. 2015;63(1):24–30. Bleich A, Bankstahl M, Jirkof P, Prins JB, Tolba RH. Severity assessment in animal based research. Lab Anim. 2020;54(1):16. Teixeira DL, Salazar LC, Enriquez-Hidalgo D, Boyle LA. Assessment of animal-based pig welfare outcomes on farm and at the abattoir: a case study. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:576942. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116–26. Freedman LP, Venugopalan G, Wisman R. Reproducibility 2020: progress and priorities. F1000Res. 2017;6:604. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. J Gene Med. 2010;12(7):561–3. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Systematic Review

Received: July 10, 2021
Accepted: June 14, 2022
Published online: June 22, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 20
Number of Figures: 12
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0014-312X (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9921 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ESR

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif