Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39736932›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Complaints to the veterinary disciplinary board related to the euthanasia of animals.

Charlotte Berg, Hannah Vickers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 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

2 authors.

Charlotte BergDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.
Hannah VickersDepartment of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the formal complaints to the Swedish Veterinary Disciplinary Board (VDB) during the years 2018-2022 related to euthanasia of animals, which are highly relevant to the One Welfare approach. The aim was to examine whether the complaints were justified or not, according to the disciplinary investigations carried out, and whether animals had been exposed to unnecessary suffering during these interventions. The reasons for the complaints were investigated and categorized. The results showed that incorrect treatment or handling of the animal was the most common reason for reporting a veterinarian to the VDB, while the main underlying cause, based on the qualitative analysis, was found to be communication barriers. However, the number of complaints leading to disciplinary outcomes (admonitions or warnings) was very low. The vast majority (45 out of 47) of complaints relating to euthanasia were therefore not legally justified as per the VDB decision, as the veterinary staff were found to have acted correctly from a veterinary and animal welfare perspective. Nevertheless, even unjustified complaints can be very stressful for the veterinarian and should be minimized.

Indexed as

animal welfarecompanion animalscomplaintseuthanasiaOne WelfareVDBveterinary clinicVMB

Identifiers

PMID39736932
PMCPMC11683124

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.