ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Improving the transparency of animal experiments: valuable lessons learned from a systematic analysis of registration protocols.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo comprehensively analyze the epidemiological characteristics of research protocols on international animal experiment registration platforms, explore potential factors influencing protocol publication, and offer recommendations to improve animal experiment registration systems.
methodsResearch protocols registered on the Netherlands’ PCT(Preclinical Trials) and Germany’s ASR(Animal Study Registry) animal experiment registration platforms up to December 30, 2024, were included. Relevant data were extracted, and frequency distributions and percentages were calculated to statistically describe the findings. Factors influencing publication rates were identified using chi-square tests and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis.
resultsA total of 272 registered protocols were analyzed, including 124 from the PCT platform and 148 from the ASR platform, originating from 31 countries, spanning 47 research areas, and involving 11 different animal species. Among the studies, 10.0% (27/272) did not report randomization, and none of the randomized studies (132/272) addressed allocation concealment. Additionally, 24.6% (67/272) and 35.3% (96/272) failed to report blinding during intervention implementation and outcome measurement, respectively. Only 43.3% (97/224) of the experiments were completed within the specified timeframe, and among these, merely 23.7% (23/97) achieved full publication. Animal species were identified as potential influencing factors. Studies using pigs as animal models were more frequently published.
conclusionAs a vital measure to enhance the quality of animal experiments, the registration of animal protocols requires joint emphasis and coordinated promotion by multiple stakeholders, including researchers, research institutions, ethics committees, journal editors, funding agencies, and regulatory authorities. Strengthening protocol registration will not only improve transparency, reproducibility, and ethical oversight, but also build a more trustworthy foundation for high-quality evidence and accelerate the clinical translation of animal research.
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.