Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37048480›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Comparison of Police Data on Animal Cruelty and the Perception of Animal Welfare NGOs in Hungary.

Gábor Lorászkó, Szilvia Vetter, Bence Rácz, Péter Sótonyi, László Ózsvári

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. 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. 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

5 authors.

Gábor LorászkóDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary.
Szilvia VetterCenter for Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary.
Bence RáczDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-1933-5332
Péter SótonyiDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary.
László ÓzsváriDepartment of Veterinary Forensics and Economics, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-5568-7319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal cruelty has been a criminal offence in Hungary since 2004 and the legislator has tightened and differentiated the regulations in several waves since then. However, it is not an exaggeration to say that the public is often impatient and dissatisfied with the actions of the authorities in relation to animal cruelty. In our research, based on the data of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police Headquarters, we examined the opinions of 99 out of a total of 155 police stations in Hungary whose staff currently working there had experience in dealing with animal cruelty. The investigators gave their opinion on a total of 1169 cases in which some kind of police action was taken, either following a report to the police or as a result of their own investigative actions. In another survey, we questioned those members of society who are most committed to animal protection using a self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaire sent to the 116 Hungarian animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the publicly available lists was also posted for a short period on the social networking site of NGO activists. Among those who responded, a total of 150 identified as active participants in the animal protection work of these NGOs. The picture of the police treatment of animal cruelty, as perceived by NGOs working in the field of animal protection, is significantly less favourable than suggested by the police data. According to the official data, 77.7% of reports initiated an investigation, while the vast majority of animal welfare activists (81.3%) suspects that only 25% of the reports result in action by the prosecuting authority.

Indexed as

animal crueltyanimal protectionanimal welfareHungaryNGOspolicesurvey

Identifiers

PMID37048480
PMCPMC10093255

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.