ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Reconciling the definitions of raw meat-based diets and biologically appropriate raw foods for companion animals: a mini review.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
There is an increasing demand for pet foods considered "natural," raw, uncooked, minimally processed, and those free of synthetic preservatives used to inactivate spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms. These diets are referred to as raw meat-based diets (RMBDs), biologically appropriate raw foods (BARFs) or raw animal products (RAPs). However, the definitions of these diets are highly subjective and rely on the interpretation of pet food manufacturers, researchers, consumers, and animal food regulatory authorities. The lack of standardized definitions hampers the necessary progress in research required to better understand this rapidly growing segment of pet food. The different definitions reduce the efficiency of international and interstate commerce between pet food manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, consumers and the regulatory authorities in different geographical jurisdictions. There is a plethora of existing literature defining and describing what raw pet foods are. Thus, a comprehensive search for published research was conducted regarding definitions and word descriptions tangential to these raw pet foods. This mini review paper explored multiple research and review articles that attempted to define "raw pet foods," and the word descriptions they used. This review focuses on RMBDs, BARFs, "raw pet foods," and RAPs as defined from an academic, processing, regulatory and consumer perspective. Furthermore, we have proposed a new working definition for these diets as "Raw and Minimally Processed" (RAMP) pet food to reflect consumer, regulatory and academic needs, and expectations. Reconciling these definitions will lay a better framework for communication, research, regulation, and commerce between stakeholders in the pet food industry.
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.