ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2026
A call for minimum standards in methodological reporting for studies using animal-borne accelerometers.
Article in Animal biotelemetry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal-borne tri-axial accelerometers are increasingly used to investigate animal behaviour and energetics. Critical methodological details, such as device placement and dynamic range, are frequently underreported. This lack of reporting hampers study replicability and interpretation of results. It also complicates comparisons between studies. In addition, as device placement and attachment method can impact animal welfare and survival, transparent reporting should be considered vital for ethical publication. In this comment, we highlight these issues through a review of methodological reporting in studies involving attaching accelerometers to sea turtles. To address these challenges, we propose a framework for minimum standardised reporting that outlines key metadata which researchers should include when publishing studies utilizing animal-borne accelerometers. We also recommend thorough testing of devices and attachment methods prior to their use in the field. Adoption of this framework will enhance transparency, reproducibility, and comparability across studies, while promoting best practices in animal welfare. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-026-00506-9.
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.