Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943215›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

A History of Pain Studies and Changing Attitudes to the Welfare of Crustaceans.

Robert William Elwood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pinchy Business: Poland's Ornamental Crayfish Trade in 2024.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Robert William ElwoodSchool of Biological Sciences, Queen's University, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6932-8691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early discussions about possible pain in crustaceans often comprised speculation and anecdotes. Experiments to investigate pain took guidance from these early debates, and from studies on other taxa. Many experiments provided data that are consistent with the idea of pain. However, that does not mean that pain has been proved, but they open the possibility. With each study that is consistent with pain being felt, the probability increases, but we will probably never have conclusive proof. Some responses appear to be nociceptive reflexes; however, they at least indicate that the animal responds to stimuli such as tissue damage, heat, acid, alkaline, or electric shock. The data are said to be consistent with pain only if they cannot be explained by reflexes. These studies have encouraged various organisations to improve the welfare of crustaceans, e.g., PETA, Crustacean Compassion, RSPCA, British Veterinary Association, UFAW, and HSA. They also formed much of the evidence included in the highly influential review of sentience for the UK government that resulted in the inclusion of decapod crustaceans in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. This recognises that decapod crustaceans are sentient. By contrast, the New York Declaration recognises there is a possibility of sentience. Others have argued against the idea of pain in crustaceans. Nevertheless, the 2022 Act provided an impetus to groups that campaign for improved welfare. Some UK retailers now require improved slaughter techniques for the shrimp/prawn they sell, and electrical stunning is the preferred slaughter method.

Indexed as

decapodhumane slaughtersentiencewelfare

Identifiers

PMID39943215
PMCPMC11815813

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.