ReviewLaboratory animals2021
Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research.
Review in Laboratory animals, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Characterizing the adult zebrafish model of Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of dynamic changes in behavior and physiology post-MPTP administration.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Alternative to animal experimentation in pharmacology teaching: Development and validation of an equivalent digital learning tool.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2022Trial
- Translational assessment instruments for preclinical to first-in-human decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Striking a balance: A proposed benefit assessment matrix for ethical animal research.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Beyond the standard: a comprehensive review of innovative experimental models using Tenebrio molitor larvae.Biologia futura · 2025Review
- Beyond the standard: a comprehensive review of innovative experimental models using Tenebrio molitor larvae.Biologia futura · 2025Review
- A scoping review of ethical decisions and decision tools for experimental animal protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Exploring the interplay of glucose metabolism, insulin resistance, and neurodegenerative pathologies: insights from streptozotocin and hypoglycaemic in vitro models.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025Review
- Between Prometheus and Thanatos: Reflections on Intracardiac Injection Models for Metastasis in Mice.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025Review
- Approved Ambiguities: An Analysis of Applications for the Ethical Review of Animal Research in Sweden-Focusing on Harm, Benefit, and the 3Rs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Reporting of measures against bias in nonclinical published research studies: a journal-based comparison.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- The 3C (Cell Culture, Computer Simulation, Clinical Trial) Solution for Optimizing the 3R (Replace, Reduction, Refine) Framework during Preclinical Research Involving Laboratory Animals.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2025Review
- Solving the riddle by puzzling it out: overcoming the challenges of harm-benefit analysis by assembling a compound model and practice-oriented tool.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Interdisciplinary Animal Research Ethics-Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Anti-Melanogenic Activity of Ethanolic Extract fromAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A minimal metadata set (MNMS) to repurpose nonclinical in vivo data for biomedical research.Lab animal · 2024Review
- Conceptual foundations for a clarified meaning of the 3Rs principles in animal experimentation.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024Review
- A critical review on experimental Streptococcus suis infection in pigs with a focus on clinical monitoring and refinement strategies.BMC veterinary research · 2023Review
- A framework and resource for global collaboration in non-human primate neuroscience.Current research in neurobiology · 2023Review
- Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm-benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (sentient) animals and harm imposed on them are necessary for achieving the study's aims. The 3Rs (Replace, Reduce and Refine) provide a guiding principle for evaluating whether the use of animals, their number and the harm imposed on them are necessary. A similar guiding principle for evaluating whether a study protocol is scientifically suitable has recently been proposed: the 3Vs principle referring to the three main aspects of scientific validity in animal research (construct, internal and external validity). Here, we analyse the internal consistency and compatibility of these two principles, address conflicts within and between the 3Rs and 3Vs principles and discuss their implications for project evaluation. We show that a few conflicts and trade-offs exist, but that these can be resolved either by appropriate study designs or by ethical deliberation in the HBA. In combination, the 3Vs, 3Rs and the HBA thus offer a coherent framework for a logically structured evaluation procedure to decide about the legitimacy of animal research projects.
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.