Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40003049›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

'

Javier López-Cepero, Alicia Español, Ángel Rodríguez-Banda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Javier López-CeperoDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8521-7860
Alicia EspañolDepartamento de Psicología Experimental-Psicología Básica, Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad de Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9831-2915
Ángel Rodríguez-BandaDepartamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, 41018 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-9918-6532

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study analyzes the decision making that underlies the choice of terms we use to refer to companion animals. Three focus groups were developed, including participants from different demographic backgrounds who answered questions about their experience cohabitating with companion animals. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Thematic Analysis, carrying out a progressive refinement of the semantic contents until abstracting general themes. This study organizes the results based on three themes: (1)

Indexed as

companion animalshuman–animal bondmultispecies familypet parentingpragmatics on human communication

Identifiers

PMID40003049
PMCPMC11852106

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.