Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21671027›Full record

ReviewFish physiology and biochemistry2012

Risk assessment in fish welfare, applications and limitations.

Christine Müller-Graf, Franck Berthe, Tomasz Grudnik, Ed Peeler, Ana Afonso

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Fish physiology and biochemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. MyFishCheck: A Model to Assess Fish Welfare in Aquaculture.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
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.

Christine Müller-GrafBundesinstitut fürRisikobewertung, Berlin, Germany.
Franck Berthe
Tomasz Grudnik
Ed Peeler
Ana Afonso

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Treaty of Amsterdam, in force since 1 May 1999, has established new ground rules for the actions of the European Union (EU) on animal welfare. It recognizes that animals are sentient beings and obliges the European Institutions to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing Community legislation. In order to properly address welfare issues, these need to be assessed in a scientific and transparent way. The principles of risk assessment in terms of transparency and use of available scientific data are probably well suited for this area. The application of risk assessment for terrestrial and aquatic animal welfare is a relatively new area. This paper describes the work developed in the context of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions on the application of a risk assessment methodology to fish welfare. Risk assessment is a scientifically based process that seeks to determine the likelihood and consequences of an adverse event, which is referred to as a hazard. It generally consists of the following steps: (i) hazard identification, (ii) hazard characterisation, (iii) exposure assessment and (iv) risk characterisation. Different approaches can be used for risk assessments, such as qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative approaches. These are discussed in the context of fish welfare, using examples from assessments done to aquaculture husbandry systems and stunning/killing methods for farmed fish. A critical review of the applications and limitations of the risk methodology in fish welfare is given. There is a need to develop appropriate indicators of fish welfare. Yet, risk assessment methodology provides a transparent approach to identify significant hazards and support recommendations for improved welfare.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareRisk AssessmentAnimalsFisheriesFishes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.