Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41459041›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Solving the riddle by puzzling it out: overcoming the challenges of harm-benefit analysis by assembling a compound model and practice-oriented tool.

Dominik Hajosi, Herwig Grimm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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

2 authors.

Dominik HajosiDepartment of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Herwig GrimmDepartment of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The practical application of harm-benefit analysis (HBA), a requirement mandated by European Union Directive 2010/63/EU, has been extensively examined. However, reviewing bodies can access only sparse and often incomplete HBA guidance. This study develops a composite HBA method composed of the relevant and useful elements from current guidance documents and provides instructions on conducting such an analysis. It redefines HBA approaches, eliminating redundant aspects while meeting the Directive's requirements. This novel compound HBA method includes a clear procedural methodology to guide project applicants, reviewing bodies, and authorities in transparent and coherent decision-making.

Indexed as

animal research ethics committeesdecision-makingethical reviewguidance documentharm-benefit analysis

Identifiers

PMID41459041
PMCPMC12739955

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.