ReviewBJA open2025
The unseen animal behind medicine: exploring considerations of animal-derived medications and anaesthetics in today's landscape.
Review in BJA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Biocompatibility of Brown Macroalgal Scaffolds in a Splinted Full-Thickness Rodent Wound Model: A Pilot Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Understanding Biologics in CRSwNP: Related Events and Insights.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- Beyond Side Effect: Immuno-Ethical Risk Analysis of Animal-Derived Ingredients in Pharmaceuticals.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Review
- Harnessing algae oil as a sustainable DHA source for parenteral nutrition in vegan patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Animal-derived ingredients in medicines: a framework for ethical prescribing practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Bone grafts and synthetic substitutes in dental applications: a comprehensive review of molecular mechanisms, materials evolution, and clinical perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Requests for medical and anaesthetic care that is 'vegan' or free of animal-derived components are becoming increasingly common in the cultural landscape. Such requests are often rooted in religious beliefs and practices. There are currently no requirements for the disclosure of animal-derived components in medical items. However, both patients and medical professionals agree that greater transparency regarding such items is needed in obtaining informed consent. Although the ethical argument for disclosure has been established, there remain gaps in practical guidelines in recognising animal-derived components in medical items and understanding how to avoid them. This lack of comprehensive knowledge leads to challenges in initiating conversations about appropriate medication selection. This manuscript will outline the common dietary restrictions of various religious groups and provide instruction on common animal-derived ingredients in medications. It will also introduce potential viable animal-free alternatives for some commonly used medications in the perioperative environment which has not been done previously in the literature. Moreover, we note the broader implications and reasoning behind considering dietary restrictions in medication choices.
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.