Veterinary Concepts | Cat | Editorial clinical interpretation guide. This guide explains how to reason through glasgow feline pain scale interpretation in practice. It is written for veterinary professionals and deliberately focuses on clinical interpretation, decision boundaries, common errors, serial reassessment and communication rather than duplicating a disease encyclopaedia. The patient must be assessed in person, and drug decisions require current species-specific formularies, regulatory requirements and the responsible veterinary surgeon.
In assessing glasgow feline pain scale interpretation for cat, Validated pain instruments can improve consistency, but their interpretation depends on the species, acute versus chronic setting and whether the actual validated version was used. A score, test, image or measurement may be useful without being diagnostic on its own. The starting point is the clinical question: what decision is being made, how urgent is it, and what reliable observations are available? Read the eight decision points below as separate checks, not as steps that every patient must follow in sequence. Emergency care and referral should take priority when the animal is unstable.
Purpose and scope of the assessment — decision point 1
Use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions
Core interpretation. Use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises at the first consultation: use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Patient context and the first clinical question — decision point 2
Observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified
Core interpretation. Observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises when results conflict: observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Pathophysiology and what the observation can mean — decision point 3
Fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment
Core interpretation. Fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises during hospital observation: fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
How to obtain a reliable observation — decision point 4
Pain assessment should be repeated after intervention
Core interpretation. Pain assessment should be repeated after intervention. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises at a follow-up visit: pain assessment should be repeated after intervention. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that pain assessment should be repeated after intervention should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: pain assessment should be repeated after intervention. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Interpretation limits and competing explanations — decision point 5
An intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used
Core interpretation. An intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises after a change in treatment: an intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that an intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: an intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Recognition of a potentially urgent change — decision point 6
Anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score
Core interpretation. Anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises when the caregiver reports progression: anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Selecting the next relevant investigation — decision point 7
Record the raw observations as well as the numeric result
Core interpretation. Record the raw observations as well as the numeric result. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises during handover to another clinician: record the raw observations as well as the numeric result. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that record the raw observations as well as the numeric result should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: record the raw observations as well as the numeric result. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Developing an individual monitoring plan — decision point 8
Failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain
Core interpretation. Failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this distinction changes how an observation should be used. The first task is to establish exactly what has been measured or reported, why it matters in this cat patient, and whether the finding has changed since the last reliable assessment. A number collected without its timing, clinical circumstances or technique can easily acquire more authority than it deserves. Preserve the raw observation in the medical record so that the next clinician can challenge or confirm the interpretation rather than inherit an unexplained conclusion.
Clinical application. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, this particular concern arises when a numerical result appears reassuring: failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain. Observe the undisturbed patient first where possible and record contextual behaviour, ability to perform normal functions and the timing of sedatives or analgesia. The practical question is which patient observation would distinguish a relatively stable finding from one that is worsening or driven by another process. Collect the relevant history and examine the animal before assigning meaning to a calculated index or laboratory marker. Where a formal scoring instrument is involved, use its original instructions and validation population, because a similar-looking score from another species or an altered scale does not carry the same interpretation.
What could mislead the team. Fear, sedation, weakness, neurologic disease and unfamiliar surroundings can mimic or conceal pain behaviours; a single score cannot determine a diagnosis. When considering glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the specific possibility that failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain should therefore be tested against at least one plausible competing explanation. An abnormality associated with glasgow feline pain scale interpretation may be genuine but not the principal cause of the presenting illness. Conversely, an apparently normal measurement may have been obtained too early, after treatment, or under conditions that mask disease. The assessment should specify what further observation, repeat examination or investigation would clarify the uncertainty. This prevents both over-treatment of an artefact and false reassurance from an isolated result.
Worked reasoning example. Imagine an cat patient with an initially ambiguous finding, followed by a change reported during the next observation period. The team should not assume that the first impression remains correct simply because the original number is still on the chart. Revisit the particular concern: failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain. Compare current and baseline observations, ask whether the measurement can be trusted and identify the consequence of missing a more serious alternative. If deterioration is suspected, arrange appropriate veterinary reassessment now. This is an illustrative reasoning example, not a validated decision rule or treatment prescription.
Putting the findings together: a structured case review
Pain care is a cycle of assessment, intervention and reassessment. For chronic discomfort, caregiver observations and functional goals add information unavailable in a brief hospital visit. When reviewing a case of glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, first list the signalment, presenting problem and the most relevant findings without interpreting them. Record their source: owner observation, direct examination, device reading, laboratory report or imaging result. Then identify the most serious explanation that still fits those facts and the evidence that would make it more or less likely. This does not mean every possibility requires testing; it means prioritising the investigations that have a reasonable prospect of affecting care.
For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, divide decisions into three categories: immediate welfare or safety needs; diagnostic questions that must be resolved soon; and longitudinal issues that can be monitored if the patient is stable. In particular, consider an intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used. Painful animals may be silent. Escalation should be driven by the patient and clinical examination when a scale underestimates apparent distress. Document what has changed between assessments and which treatments or procedures occurred between measurements. A clinically appropriate decision may be to seek more experienced help or transfer a patient even though a score has not crossed a formal numerical threshold.
Monitoring, communication and documentation checklist
- Record the patient identity, species, age, major comorbidities and why the assessment was requested — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions.
- Describe the observation source, technique, baseline and sampling or examination time — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified.
- Write down the most clinically consequential competing explanation and how it was considered — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment.
- State what prompted intervention, additional testing, observation or referral — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to pain assessment should be repeated after intervention.
- Review the relevant changes in medication, fluids, nursing care, activity or environment — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to an intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used.
- Specify the monitoring frequency and who is responsible for the next examination — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score.
- Record the caregiver observations that will prompt an earlier call or immediate return — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to record the raw observations as well as the numeric result.
- Distinguish a structural score from the veterinary diagnosis and the treatment plan — for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, relate this explicitly to failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain.
A useful handover for glasgow feline pain scale interpretation is concise enough to be actionable yet detailed enough to show why the conclusion was reached. Specifically record the finding that anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score. It includes the principal clinical finding, the level of urgency, what has already been excluded, what is still uncertain, and what observation must be repeated. Validated pain instruments can improve consistency, but their interpretation depends on the species, acute versus chronic setting and whether the actual validated version was used. The aim is a shared, auditable plan for a particular animal, not a standard template copied into the record without checking the facts.
Questions frequently arising in clinical practice
Can a single result establish the diagnosis?
Usually not on its own. Use the validated feline scale and its official scoring instructions. The veterinary history, examination and appropriate confirmation are needed. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
When should the observation be repeated?
Repeat it when the answer will influence care or when measurement quality is uncertain. Observe posture, interaction, vocalisation and response to palpation where specified. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
What is a common interpretation error?
A recurring error is ignoring context: fear and restraint can affect the behavioural assessment. The same numerical finding can carry a different implication in another patient. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
Does a reassuring score rule out deterioration?
No. Pain assessment should be repeated after intervention. Interpret a score with the patient trajectory and the limits of the instrument. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
What information belongs in a referral?
Include the timeline, direct observations, key measurements, interventions and unresolved clinical concerns. An intervention threshold applies only to the version of the scale being used. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
Should treatment be based only on a calculator?
No. A calculator is a way to organise available information. Anaesthesia and sedating drugs can confound the score. Treatment requires clinical judgement and relevant current professional guidance. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
How is improvement recognised?
Use repeatable measures and meaningful changes in welfare and function. Record the raw observations as well as the numeric result. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
What if findings do not agree?
Check technique, sampling time and alternative explanations. Failure to eat or normalise activity may reveal ongoing pain. Where serious harm is possible, err toward timely reassessment. For glasgow feline pain scale interpretation, the next step should be chosen by the responsible veterinary team rather than inferred from the text alone.
Sources, calculator navigation and editorial status
These links provide primary professional guidelines, consensus documents or veterinary background material. They do not imply every sentence in this draft has been independently verified, and some sources cover associated assessment principles rather than this exact topic.
- 2022 ISFM acute pain consensus for cats
- 2022 AAHA pain management guidelines for dogs and cats
- 2023 AAHA senior care: pain and function
Related VetCalc resources: Browse veterinary calculators and tools; VetCalc home and clinical reference resources. Confirm the most appropriate calculator for the species, measurement units and intended clinical use before applying it.
Editorial status: professional clinical draft, prepared 30 October 2026. Automated length and link checks are not clinical peer review. Local formulary, current consensus revisions and veterinary governance take precedence. No medication dosing recommendations are made in this article.