Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35108305›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Evaluation of small mammal pet supplies offered in German retail under animal welfare aspects.

Alexandra Bläske, Angela Schwarzer, Magdalena V Ebner, Hendrikje Gerbig, Sven Reese, Michael Erhard, Anna-Caroline Wöhr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Husbandry Conditions and Welfare State of Pet Chinchillas (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
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

7 authors.

Alexandra BläskeDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2988-5597
Angela SchwarzerDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Magdalena V EbnerDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hendrikje GerbigDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sven ReeseDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael ErhardDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anna-Caroline WöhrDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

German retailers offer a large variety of accessories for pets. However, not all products are suitable for pet husbandry. Several articles can negatively influence the wellbeing of pets or cause injuries, but empirical studies that evaluate accessories for small pets under animal welfare aspects are rare. In the present study, we assessed articles manufactured or sold in Germany in the product categories pet cages, hay racks, running wheels, exercise balls, harnesses and leashes, tube systems, and hamster bedding. To do so, we searched 28 German websites, visited 50 pet shops and 13 home improvement and garden centers on site and afterwards examined the animal welfare compliance of the products according to various evaluation criteria. Most of the examined products were rated not suitable for pet husbandry and were animal-welfare-adverse. This result applies to 86.1% (n = 87) of the 101 assessed running wheel models, 82.7% (n = 172) of the 208 assessed pet cage models and 55.6% (n = 40) of the 72 assessed hay rack models. The articles in the product categories exercise balls, harnesses and leashes, tube systems, and hamster bedding were also found unsuitable due to animal welfare concerns. Furthermore, we found clear shortcomings regarding article declarations. In some cases, relevant product information (e.g., dimensions) were missing, or the presented information was too general (e.g., rodent cage). Improperly declared pet accessories make it difficult for pet owners to decide whether a product is suitable or unsuitable for the species they keep. A declaration duty for manufacturers of pet products could ensure that German retailers only offer properly declared pet accessories and facilitate the decision for pet owners to purchase products appropriate for the pets they keep. Furthermore, a voluntary product certification for manufacturers would allow retailers to check the animal welfare compliance of articles before including them in their assortment. If a product is unsuitable for pet husbandry because it does not meet the set requirements, it must be considered animal-welfare-adverse and removed from the assortment. As done for the Austrian "animal welfare label," an independent, qualified third party could do the certification.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareAnimal HusbandryAnimalsGermanyMammalsMarketingPets

Identifiers

PMID35108305
PMCPMC8809526

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.