Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37370476›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Zoo Animal Welfare Assessment: Where Do We Stand?

Oriol Tallo-Parra, Marina Salas, Xavier Manteca

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Animal-Visitor Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Oriol Tallo-ParraSchool of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus UAB, 08193 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0273-9824
Marina SalasAntwerp Zoo Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, Koningin Astridplein 20-26, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-4203
Xavier MantecaSchool of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus UAB, 08193 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2061-4179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zoological institutions, such as zoos and aquariums, have made animal welfare a top priority, as it is not only a moral obligation but also crucial for fulfilling their roles in education and conservation. There is a need for science-based tools to assess and monitor animal welfare in these settings. However, assessing the welfare of zoo animals is challenging due to the diversity of species and lack of knowledge on their specific needs. This review aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of existing methodologies for assessing zoo animal welfare through: (1) A critical analysis of the main approaches to zoo animal welfare assessment; (2) A description of the most relevant animal-based welfare indicators for zoo animals with a particular focus on behavioural and physiological indicators; and (3) An identification of areas that require further research.

Indexed as

animal-based indicatorsanimal behaviourstresswelfare assessmentwelfare indicatorzoo animal welfare

Identifiers

PMID37370476
PMCPMC10294817

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.