ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Animal Abuse Reporting and the Ethical Role of Veterinarians: A Comparative Review of Practices in South Korea, Canada, and the United States.
Review 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Veterinary Professionals' Intent to Intervene in Cases of Animal Maltreatment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Companion-Animal Abuse in South Korea: Welfare and Veterinary Implications from Criminal-Court Decisions (2003-2025).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animal abuse reporting represents a crucial ethical responsibility for veterinarians globally, with cultural, legal, and societal factors significantly impacting practices. This comparative narrative review investigates veterinary reporting practices across South Korea, Canada, and the United States. A narrative review was conducted using systematic searches across PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, employing jurisdiction-specific terms. Additional searches encompassed state-specific legal databases, professional licensing board records, and disciplinary action reports. To investigate reporting systems, enforcement mechanisms, and outcomes, legal documents, policy analyses, and empirical studies from 2010 to 2025 were analyzed. Findings revealed stark contrasts between voluntary and mandatory systems. South Korea's voluntary framework caused significant underreporting. Canada's provincial mandatory frameworks exhibited significantly higher levels of compliance, as a result of the strength of their statutory enforcement mechanisms. The United States presented a mixed landscape, wherein approximately 24 states mandated reporting with license revocation penalties, whereas others maintained voluntary systems. Cultural factors, professional autonomy concerns, and enforcement mechanisms shaped reporting behaviors and animal welfare outcomes. South Korea requires legislative changes implementing graduated mandatory reporting systems with legal protections and cultural adaptation strategies. Benchmarking against Canadian and American models demonstrates that mandatory reporting with appropriate enforcement mechanisms shows potential to enhance animal welfare protection through increased reporting rates and systematic intervention pathways, though direct causal evidence linking reporting to measurable welfare outcomes remains limited.
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.