ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
A scoping review of ethical decisions and decision tools for experimental animal protocols.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific research projects involving animals are required to undergo ethical evaluation, generally known as harm-benefit analysis (HBA), to ensure that they address important ethical concerns related to animal welfare and the scientific quality of the research to maximize the likelihood of their potential benefits. Research continuously shows the challenges encountered by decision-makers, prompting researchers to review how HBA is conducted and to propose tools to aid decision-making. However, the extent to which such resources are currently available, their jurisdictions of applicability, and how they guide decision-making are not entirely clear.
methodThrough a Scoping Review methodology, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for publications in Europe and North America (USA and Canada) from 1985 to 2023. Title and abstract, full-text, and reference screenings, followed by data charting, respectively, were carried out for retrieved publications using pre-developed and registered review protocol.
results17 resources that can guide HBA and decision-making were identified. They discussed what should constitute harm to animals and benefits of research, and how these two interests can be balanced to make a decision. Some adopt mathematical calculations, some propose guidelines for committee discussions, while others propose the combination of different approaches to decision-making.
conclusionsDecision-making based on deliberation among committee members should be supported over the use of scoring approaches. Additionally, making ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis is preferable to accuracy, which may not be realistically practicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.