ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2019
Animal Research, Accountability, Openness and Public Engagement: Report from an International Expert Forum.
Article 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 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Primate Welfare INdicators project (PWIN): For an objective and standardised welfare assessment of non-human primates used in research.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Animal Research Regulation: Improving Decision-Making and Adopting a Transparent System to Address Concerns around Approval Rate of Experiments.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- The well-built research question.Lab animal · 2023Article
- A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research.Social & cultural geography · 2023Article
- Protecting Canada's Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Varying Degrees of Animal Reification by Stakeholders in Experimental Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Open Transparent Communication about Animals in Laboratories: Dialog for Multiple Voices and Multiple Audiences.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Perceptions of laboratory animal facility managers regarding institutional transparency.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.