Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26106269›Full record

ReviewSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2015

Alternatives to animal testing: A review.

Sonali K Doke, Shashikant C Dhawale

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
174citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

174 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Integration of epigenetics into ecotoxicology: insights and fundamental research needs.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. AlternativeExpert reviews in molecular medicine · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. EvaluatingmicroPublication biology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Sonali K DokeSchool of Pharmacy, SRTM University, Nanded 431 606, MS, India.
Shashikant C DhawaleSchool of Pharmacy, SRTM University, Nanded 431 606, MS, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world. The pain, distress and death experienced by the animals during scientific experiments have been a debating issue for a long time. Besides the major concern of ethics, there are few more disadvantages of animal experimentation like requirement of skilled manpower, time consuming protocols and high cost. Various alternatives to animal testing were proposed to overcome the drawbacks associated with animal experiments and avoid the unethical procedures. A strategy of 3 Rs (i.e. reduction, refinement and replacement) is being applied for laboratory use of animals. Different methods and alternative organisms are applied to implement this strategy. These methods provide an alternative means for the drug and chemical testing, up to some levels. A brief account of these alternatives and advantages associated is discussed in this review with examples. An integrated application of these approaches would give an insight into minimum use of animals in scientific experiments.

Indexed as

3 RsAlternative organismAnimal ethicsLaboratory animalModel organism

Identifiers

PMID26106269
PMCPMC4475840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.