Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30658490›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2019

A Review of Welfare Assessment Methods in Reptiles, and Preliminary Application of the Welfare Quality

Amelia L Benn, David J McLelland, Alexandra L Whittaker

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Behaviours of farmed saltwater crocodiles (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia L BennSchool of Animal & Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. a1686368@student.adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0276-5459
David J McLellandSchool of Animal & Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. dmclelland@zoossa.com.au.
Alexandra L WhittakerSchool of Animal & Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. alexandra.whittaker@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9011-8296
The University of Adelaide · AUZoos Victoria · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reptiles are held at wildlife parks and zoos for display and conservation breeding programs and are increasingly being kept as pets. Reliable indicators of welfare for reptiles need to be identified. Current guidelines for the captive management of reptiles utilize resource-based, rather than animal-based indicators; the latter being a more direct reflection of affective state. In this paper we review the literature on welfare assessment methods in reptiles with a focus on animal-based measures. We conclude that, whilst a number of physiological and behavioral indicators of welfare have been applied in reptiles, there is need for further validation of these methods across the diversity of species within the Class. Methods of positive welfare state assessment are comparatively understudied and need elucidation. Finally, we examine some widely-used welfare assessment tools in mammals and explore the application of the Welfare Quality

Indexed as

assessment toolplaypygmy skinkreptileswelfare

Identifiers

PMID30658490
PMCPMC6356264
OpenAlexW2909324323

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.