ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2021
Recommendations for Ethical Review of Veterinary Clinical Trials.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. 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.
- Structural characteristics of research ethics committees in Japan and their relevance to regulatory science: a nationwide descriptive study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Animal models of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- From bench to bedside and back: translational cardiovascular interventions in veterinary medicine.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the surface thermal response of peripheral nerve blocks in dogs undergoing trauma or orthopedic surgery.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Editorial: Best practices in clinical research conduct in veterinary medicine.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Operational issues of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee in Korea.Journal of veterinary science · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the dual TORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Ethical Challenges Posed by Advanced Veterinary Care in Companion Animal Veterinary Practice.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethical review of both human and animal research is critical to ensuring that studies are conducted with due regard to the welfare and safety of enrolled subjects and to the integrity of the data. However, differences exist in laws, policies, and best practices between human and animal studies. Ethical review is required for most human studies. While the laws and standards are clear for humans and for laboratory animals, the laws and standards for clinical research for client-owned animals are not as well-defined. Here, we discuss gaps in ethical review of clinical animal research in the United States of America and propose expanded functions for veterinary clinical studies committees as a solution.
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.