ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Use and reporting of systematic review methodology in EFSA scientific opinions on animal health and welfare.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The 5% Problem: How the Biomedical Community Responded to the Animal-to-Human Translation Crisis, and the Case for Non-Animal Methods.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the growing use of systematic reviews of animal studies, it remains unclear how often systematic review methodology - such as detailed search strategies, critical appraisal, and protocol registration - is applied in regulatory contexts. We aimed to assess the use and reporting quality of systematic reviews in the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) Scientific Opinions on animal health and welfare. Methods: We conducted an exploratory study comprising of a retrospective analysis of 151 EFSA Scientific Opinions. We classified the types of studies underpinning these reports, including systematic reviews, literature reviews, and other study designs. Additionally, we assessed the reporting rigor of key systematic review elements. Results: Literature reviews were the most common study type, present in 126 reports (83%), with 40 reports (27%) applying systematic review methods such as searching multiple databases and reporting clear research questions, inclusion criteria, and study counts. Eleven studies (27%) were explicitly labelled as systematic reviews, with their use increasing over time. Reporting quality varied: 64% listed more than one reviewer, 45% reported a risk of bias assessment, and 36% registered a study protocol. Discussion: Systematic review methodology is increasingly applied in EFSA's Scientific Opinions on animal health and welfare. However, methodological rigor and reporting standards remain inconsistent, underscoring the need for improvement to strengthen the reliability and transparency of EFSA's evidence base.
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.