Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40802203›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.

David Mawufemor Azilagbetor, Gail Davies, Lester Darryl Geneviève, David Martin Shaw, Bernice Simone Elger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 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

5 authors.

David Mawufemor AzilagbetorInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. david.azilagbetor@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-639X
Gail DaviesGeography Department, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6811-0885
Lester Darryl GenevièveInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
David Martin ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bernice Simone ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Doing scientific research with animals is a subject of intense societal debate, often involving polarized and public discussions with stakeholders and groups interested in animal research. Patients, given their medical conditions, have a high stake in biomedical research, including research involving animals. However, their perspectives are rarely heard in policy-related discussions on animal experiments. This essay discusses the positions and stakes of groups involved in public discourse and policy-relevant engagements. It further explores the legitimate interest of patients and the need for an all-inclusive approach to animal research policy. This subject is complex and democratic societies must address societal issues with an all-inclusive approach to reach policy decisions reflecting the interests of all stakeholders. The positions of groups-pro-animal research stakeholders and anti-animal-research advocates-with vested interests involved in animal research discourse considerably shape research policies. Animal research policies arguably affect patients. Through democratic ideals, inclusive approaches that are suitable for resolving science-driven societal issues, and initiatives currently guiding animal research policies, patients need to actively be involved in public discourses and policy-relevant decision-making processes in deciding the place of animal research in biomedical advancement as a society.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationBiomedical ResearchPatient ParticipationAnimalsHumansPolicy MakingAnimal experimentationDemocratic approachPatient involvementResearch ethicsResearch policy

Identifiers

PMID40802203
PMCPMC12583320

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.