Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41096367›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Approved Ambiguities: An Analysis of Applications for the Ethical Review of Animal Research in Sweden-Focusing on Harm, Benefit, and the 3Rs.

Svea Jörgensen, Elin M Weber, Johan Lindsjö, Frida Lundmark Hedman, Helena Röcklinsberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Svea JörgensenDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare (THV), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Elin M WeberDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare (THV), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden.
Johan LindsjöDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare (THV), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Frida Lundmark HedmanDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare (THV), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4842-5636
Helena RöcklinsbergDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare (THV), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7068, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2821-6837

Funding

Stiftelse Petra Lundberg 2020-Forskning-011Swedish Research Council for Environment Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning 2021-01226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines regulatory requirements concerning the ethical review of animal research in Sweden, in particular legal obligations placed on applicants, and to some extent on Animal Ethics Committees (AECs). It focuses on what information applying researchers are required to provide, to what extent submitted applications reflect the fulfilment of these requirements, and how the AECs handle the information they receive. The study emphasizes areas of concern critical for an ethical evaluation. By examining a selection of submitted applications, the study has found information about harm, benefit, and the 3Rs is often insufficient or occasionally altogether missing, thus hindering the AECs' performance of a harm-benefit analysis (HBA) and an assessment of how the applying researcher has considered the 3Rs in their project. The authors underscore the necessity for applying researchers to include detailed, relevant, complete, and accurate information to facilitate a thorough ethical review. To facilitate a shift towards a more thorough project evaluation, the authors suggest nine action points to improve the ethical review process for the sake of applicants, evaluators (AECs), and the animals used in research. This approach will also help enhance research quality, promote transparency, and build public trust in the ethical review process.

Indexed as

3Ranimal ethicsAnimal Ethics Committee (AEC)animal researchanimal welfareDirective 2010/63/EUharm–benefit analysis (HBA)

Identifiers

PMID41096367
PMCPMC12523415

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.