Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42511108›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

How Nutritionally Sound Is Commercially Available Vegan Pet Food Relative to Meat-Based Pet Food? A Systematic Review.

Jenny L Mace, Billy Nicholles, Andrew Knight

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. 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

3 authors.

Jenny L MaceCentre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9AL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8132-3447
Billy NichollesBryant Research, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9JQ, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-3194-5417
Andrew KnightSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Environmental and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South St., Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9753-6199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single studies are often cited to support claims of nutritional soundness or unsoundness regarding vegan or meat-based pet foods when compared to nutritional guidelines from authorities such as the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), the European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF), and the National Research Council (NRC). However, there is little overarching evidence concerning the nutritional soundness of these different pet food types. Such overarching evidence is increasingly important as alternative vegan or meat-based pet food types become more available, such as insect-based, raw meat, and microbial protein-based pet foods. In this systematic review, 54 relevant studies examining the nutritional soundness of vegan, vegetarian, or meat-based dog or cat foods were descriptively analyzed. Only 10 (18.5%) studies found

Indexed as

meat-based pet foodpet nutritionvegan cat foodvegan dog foodvegan pet food

Identifiers

PMID42511108
PMCPMC13405999

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.