Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36428330›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Clinical Animal Behaviour: Paradigms, Problems and Practice.

Daniel S Mills

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Changing Hearts and Minds in the Equestrian World One Behaviour at a Time.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  9. 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

1 author.

Daniel S MillsAnimal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4765-9625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both the public and clinicians are interested in the application of scientific knowledge concerning problem animal behaviour and its treatment. However, in order to do this effectively it is essential that individuals have not only scientific literacy but also an appreciation of philosophical concepts underpinning a particular approach and their practical implications on the knowledge generated as a result. This paper highlights several common misunderstandings and biases associated with different scientific perspectives relevant to clinical animal behaviour and their consequences for how we determine what may be a useful treatment for a given patient. In addition to more reflective evaluation of results, there is a need for researchers to report more information of value to clinicians; such as relevant treatment outcomes, effect sizes, population characteristics. Clinicians must also appreciate the limitations of population level study results to a given case. These challenges can however be overcome with the careful critical reflection using the scientific principles and caveats described.

Indexed as

applied behavioral analysisbehaviorismbehavioural medicinecompanion animalsevidence based medicinescientific methodscientific philosophyveterinary behavioural medicine

Identifiers

PMID36428330
PMCPMC9687072

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.