Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41594396›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

COMPASS Guidelines for Conducting Welfare-Focused Research into Behaviour Modification of Animals.

Paul D McGreevy, David J Mellor, Rafael Freire, Kate Fenner, Katrina Merkies, Amanda Warren-Smith, Mette Uldahl, Melissa Starling, Amy Lykins, Andrew McLean and 12 more

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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. Article
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

22 authors.

Paul D McGreevySydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-8378
David J MellorAnimal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
Rafael FreireSchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4282-1379
Kate FennerSchool of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0649-3278
Katrina MerkiesDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9462-4150
Amanda Warren-SmithMillthorpe Equine Research Centre, Millthorpe, NSW 2798, Australia.
Mette UldahlVejle Equine Practice, Fasanvej 12, 7120 Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4460-4474
Melissa StarlingSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2394-3234
Amy LykinsSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-3964
Andrew McLeanEquitation Science International, Tuerong, VIC 3915, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6971-7961
Orla DohertySchool of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland.
Ella Bradshaw-WileySchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Rimini QuinnSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Cristina L WilkinsSchool of Rural and Environmental Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-4222-1727
Janne Winther ChristensenDepartment Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Bidda JonesSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Lisa AshtonEquine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-8713-518X
Barbara PadalinoDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agro-Alimentari, Università di Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7630-8285
Claire O' BrienInstitute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, Aberystwyth SY23 3FL, UK.
Caleigh CopelinDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Colleen BradyAgricultural Sciences Education and Communication, Purdue University, 915 W State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3828-9917
Cathrynne HenshallSchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0279-8805

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers are increasingly engaged in studies to determine and correct negative welfare consequences of animal husbandry and behaviour modification procedures, not least in response to industries' growing need to maintain their social licence through demonstrable welfare standards that address public expectations. To ensure that welfare recommendations are scientifically credible, the studies must be rigorously designed and conducted, and the data produced must be interpreted with full regard to conceptual, methodological, and experimental design limitations. This commentary provides guidance on these matters. In addition to, and complementary with, the ARRIVE guidelines that deal with animal studies in general, there is a need for additional specific advice on the design of studies directed at procedures that alter behaviour, whether through training, handling, or restraint. The COMPASS Guidelines offer clear direction for conducting welfare-focused behaviour modification research. They stand for the following: Controls and Calibration, emphasising rigorous design, baseline measures, equipment calibration, and replicability; Objectivity and Open data, ensuring transparency, validated tools, and data accessibility; Motivation and Methods, with a focus on learning theory, behavioural science, and evidence-based application of positive reinforcers and aversive stimuli; Precautions and Protocols, embedding the precautionary principle, minimising welfare harms, listing stop criteria, and using real-time monitoring; Animal-centred Assessment, with multimodal welfare evaluation, using physiological, behavioural, functional, and objective indicators; Study ethics and Standards, noting the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement), welfare endpoints, long-term effects, industry independence, and risk-benefit analysis; and Species-relevance and Scientific rigour, facilitating cross-species applicability with real-world relevance and robust methodology. To describe these guidelines, the current article is organised into seven major sections that outline detailed, point-by-point considerations for ethical and scientifically rigorous design. It concludes with a call for continuous improvement and collaboration. A major purpose is to assist animal ethics committees when considering the design of experiments. It is also anticipated that these Guidelines will assist reviewers and editorial teams in triaging manuscripts that report studies in this context.

Indexed as

animal ethicsbehaviour modificationconditioningdeprivationmotivationstudy design

Identifiers

PMID41594396
PMCPMC12838371

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.