Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39703221›Full record

ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024

Considerations for implementing regulation of decapods in science.

Adam Powell, Ann-Lisbeth Agnalt, Kevin Heasman, Amaya Albalat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Adam PowellDepartment of Life Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion SY23 3DA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2637-9795
Ann-Lisbeth AgnaltInstitute of Marine Research, Nordnesgaten 50, Bergen 5005, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8605-8227
Kevin HeasmanCawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1928-9978
Amaya AlbalatInstitute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decapod crustaceans, commonly utilised for pure or applied scientific research and commercial food production, have generally remained outside ethical debate. However, in the last decade many parts of the world have seen an increase in public interest in the welfare of decapod crustaceans and statutory legal protection has been introduced in several countries. Although still limited to a small number of countries and remaining relatively unharmonised, relevant legislation could be increasingly broadened to include decapods in further jurisdictions. Much existing legislation, originally intended for protecting terrestrial vertebrates during scientific study, might be unsuitable for aquatic invertebrates such as decapods. Indeed, precedence with many fish species and cephalopods suggests detail is lacking with respect to fundamental guidance. Therefore, similar inclusion of decapods into such legislation could make welfare or scientific goals more challenging to achieve unless relevant guidance is available, particularly to animal care practitioners. This horizon paper aims to summarise existing decapod legislation, and the considerations required should decapods be included in current conceptual frameworks and scientific legislation.

Indexed as

3Rsanimal welfarecrustaceanlegislationresearchsentience

Identifiers

PMID39703221
PMCPMC11655277

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.