ArticlePloS one2024
Mission impossible accomplished? A European cross-national comparative study on the integration of the harm-benefit analysis into law and policy documents.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Institutional animal care and use committees and the challenges of evaluating animal research proposals.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
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
The harm-benefit analysis (HBA) is a cornerstone of the European Directive 2010/63/EU (the Directive). The Directive regulates the care and handling of animals used for scientific purposes in the European Union (EU). Since its implementation, there has been ongoing debate around the practical applicability of the HBA for research project review processes. The objectives of this study are to analyze the operationalization of HBA in EU member states and investigate the consistency of HBA's implementation in terms of national legislation and available policy documents. To meet these objectives, we evaluated the transposition of the HBA requirement into national legislation. We also conducted a comprehensive comparative cross-national analysis of all guidance documents pertinent to HBA. The results of our study show that there are (1) deficits in the transposition of the HBA requirement into national laws, (2) significant discrepancies in available policy documents relating to HBA, and (3) insufficiently consistent implementations of HBA in European countries.
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.