ArticlePloS one2026
Animal abuse by falsification-Recognition amongst the veterinary profession in The Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presently, Animal Abuse by (condition/ illness) Falsification (AAF), has received little scientific attention. Feigning illness in children for attention purposes has been studied, indicating that the involved children can suffer serious consequences. Although to date little is known about AAF, perplexing presentation has been mentioned. We aim to add to scientific information on veterinary awareness of AAF. Our exploratory survey-based research addressed veterinarians and vet technicians/ assistants, asking questions on their awareness of AAF and recognition of possible AAF signs. We found that only 12% of our 88 participants, who mainly treated companion animals, had previously received education on AAF. Despite this, 83% reported familiarity with the phenomenon of AAF. Half of the participants (51%), indicated to likely see AAF cases in their veterinary clinic, 5% indicated to see them with certainty (unsure: 32%; not to see such cases: 12%). Most often dogs and cats were indicated as a proxy (other animals: rabbits, rodent, horse). When asked how likely a participant would regard a sign/ symptom indicative of AAF, participants scored higher likeliness for those signs/ symptoms regarding client behaviours than animal/ medical aspects. Reporting of AAF in this sample was low: 92% indicated to have never reported AAF as animal abuse. Barriers to reporting AAF included a lack of knowledge on AAF and how to identify clients suffering from the condition. Our study engaged a limited number of participants in only one country, but indicates that knowledge on AAF may facilitate the recognition of this form of animal abuse.
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.