Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41937320›Full record

SynthesisPublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2026

Barriers to science communication about research involving animal experimentation: A systematic literature review.

Sebastian Löser, Emma Weitkamp, Lena M Schiefelbein, Claudia N Haertel, Susanne Bögeholz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2026. 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

5 authors.

Sebastian LöserGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-4687-5948
Emma WeitkampUniversity of the West of England Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1296-5822
Lena M SchiefelbeinGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.
Claudia N HaertelGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.
Susanne BögeholzGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5745-7827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research involving animal experimentation is a contentious issue at the intersection of science and society, making science communication about it especially challenging. Yet, we lack a systematic account of the barriers researchers and communicators face in this context. Our systematic review used a peer-reviewed search strategy and screening by independent reviewers. The resulting 65 documents (e.g. research articles, editorials, comments) underwent full-text qualitative content analysis. Seven barrier themes emerged from the dataset, most prominently:

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationCommunicationInformation DisseminationScienceAnimalsanimal experimentationbarrierliterature reviewscience communication

Identifiers

PMID41937320
PMCPMC13291394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.