ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
The inaccurate citation of the "Universal Declaration of Animal Rights" (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR), adopted in 1977 by an international NGO inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and made public the following year, aimed to establish a universal code for human conduct toward animals. The declaration was revised twice, in 1989 and 2018, but it failed to be internationally recognised or adopted. While its global influence remained limited, misinterpretations of its scope and context have proliferated in legal and veterinary documents. To gauge its impact on scientific literature, a scoping review across three databases (Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) was conducted for publications citing the UDAR from 1979 to 2022.
resultsIn terms of research field, the UDAR is mostly cited in the fields of law (27%), philosophy, ethics, and religion (17%), clinical medicine (17%), and basic medicine (11%). The 1978 UDAR version was most often cited. Among 305 screened publications, 47.9% contained erroneous or misleading claims about the UDAR. Common errors included linking the UDAR to UNESCO (34.8%) and conferring it universal endorsement or legally binding value (10.2%). More than half (57%, 59/103) of the mentions in the ethics section contained errors, namely confusing UDAR with other animal protection texts. Regarding the type of animal use, most misleading claims were found in scientific publications focusing on the use of animals in research.
conclusionsThe misappropriation of the UDAR risks providing a false sense of legitimacy and moral compass to editors, reviewers, and readers regarding animal use and highlights that the authors are unaware of ethical or regulatory frameworks governing the proper use of animals in science. This is particularly relevant because the 1978 version, which is antithetical to animal use in science, was most often cited, raising concerns about the governance of animal research in some institutions and the efficacy of the peer review process in detecting these errors. Finally, UDAR mentions grew more than the estimated growth of scientific publications worldwide, thus suggesting an increase in its influence.
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.