Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180164›Full record

ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025

Laying the groundwork for reptile welfare assessment in zoos and private keeping: A literature-based proposal.

Hsiao-Mei Yeh, Chien-Chen Huang, Yu-Wei Chiang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Hsiao-Mei YehInstitute of Preventive Medicine, National Defense Medical University, New Taipei City 237010, Taiwan.
Chien-Chen HuangSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Yu-Wei ChiangInstitute of Preventive Medicine, National Defense Medical University, New Taipei City 237010, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-1837

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increasing number and diversity of reptile species kept in zoological facilities and households, their welfare in captivity warrants structured and consistent evaluation. However, focused research on reptile welfare remains limited within the broader field of animal welfare science. Recognising such a gap, this study adopts an evidence-informed approach to review existing literature and proposes two conceptual welfare assessment frameworks - one for zoo settings and another for private keeping. We first identify the intended audiences for each framework and discuss common challenges reptile caretakers may face when conducting welfare assessments in different contexts. The frameworks are grounded in established principles from the Five Domains model and the European Welfare Quality® protocol, incorporating both resource- and animal-based indicators under the domains of Environment, Nutrition, Physical Health, and Behaviour. The design rationale is also explained to support future refinement. Finally, these conceptual frameworks are intended as a foundation for the development and validation of adaptable tools, capable of guiding improved husbandry practices and resource allocation for better welfare outcomes across a broad range of reptile taxa.

Indexed as

Animal welfarepetpositive welfarereptilewelfare assessmentzoo

Identifiers

PMID41180164
PMCPMC12571689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.