Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39994586›Full record

ReviewBMC veterinary research2025

Ethical collection of animal cadavers for veterinary education.

Edwin Louis-Maerten, David M Shaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC veterinary research, 2025. 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. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Edwin Louis-MaertenInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. edwin.louis@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-6554-4821
David M ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8180-6927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of animal cadavers in initial and continuing veterinary education is widely accepted, but ethical considerations regarding how to obtain and use them are often lacking. It can be argued that the use of animal cadavers should be guided by principles similar to those regulating the collection of human cadavers for scientific purposes. In humans, the use of unclaimed cadavers from unknown provenance, cadavers from criminals or homeless people, or cadavers robbed from their grave no longer happens in most countries. Accordingly, body donation programs have been emphasized to be the sole acceptable source of cadavers for medical education. The purpose of this article is to argue that this should also be the case for domestic animals, contrary to the current practices of using unwanted animals or animals bred for this purpose. But having a body donation program is not enough to make it ethical: care should also be taken in order to include principles such as informed consent from the owners, the absence of commercial uses of the bodily remains and the respect for all parties involved in the process. Overall, the importance of maintaining respect towards the reception and use of a donated cadaver in all circumstances should be the ethical priority for students and practitioners. By applying such principles, we can better ensure that the use of animal cadavers in education and training is transparent, respectful and responsible.

Indexed as

Education, VeterinaryAnimalsCadaverHumansBody donationDomestic animalsDonor programEthicsVeterinary education

Identifiers

PMID39994586
PMCPMC11853696

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.