ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Pet owner perspectives, motivators and concerns about veterinary biobanking.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Critical Contribution of Pathology Technicians to Veterinary Diagnostics, Research and Teaching.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- A canine brain bank for comparative neuroscience and brain aging research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Pet owners' perspectives on veterinary biobanking in Latvia: Awareness, motivations, ethical concerns, and willingness to participate.Veterinary world · 2025Article
- Through Human Eyes: Owner Insights into the Social Relationships of Pet Rats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Veterinary biobanks store samples for future use and distribute samples to academic researchers and industry entities; however, informed consent provided by owners for pets contributing to biobanks can be complicated by limited understanding of goals, purpose, and logistics of biobanking. Methods: This survey-based study aimed to gather feedback from pet owners on how they viewed allowing their pet to contribute to a veterinary biobank, with the goal of identifying opportunities to improve education, awareness of veterinary biobanking initiatives, and the consent processes. An electronic survey was distributed to a listserv of 2,119 pet owners and responses were received from 118 respondents (5.6%). Results: Most respondents (67%) were not familiar with the concept of veterinary biobanking prior to having responded to the survey. Most (89%) were willing to allow their healthy pet to contribute samples to a veterinary biobanking program. Ninety-five percent would allow their sick pet to contribute. Most were neutral about financial incentives as a motivator to participate, although 40% indicated that if their pet's condition resulted in a decision to humanely euthanize, they would be more likely to contribute to the biobank if the veterinary biobanking program covered the cost of euthanasia. Common concerns included security/confidentiality (36%), that results would not be shared with them (33%) or that samples would be used for other purposes beyond those advertised (22%). Discussion: These results suggest veterinary biobanking initiatives are well received by owners and most are willing to allow their pets to participate. Respondent concerns represent opportunities for veterinary biobanks to improve messaging and dissemination of results from work they support.
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.