Search strategy used for systematic search.

<div> Objectives The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical literature on the different factors influencing, or likely to influence, decision-making by AECs when evaluating animal research proposals. Methods A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed. Results Twelve papers were included in the final results, four of which were quantitative, five qualitative, and three were mixed methods. Qualitative content analysis revealed deficits in the assessment of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction or Refinement) or the weighing of harms and benefits. Factors related to the review process, applicants, and committees were found to influence this process. Conclusion The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees. Registration The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB</a> </div>

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2025-03-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570.s002
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Search strategy used for systematic search.

Figshare
Animal testing and alternatives
article

Search strategy used for systematic search.

article en

Abstract

<div> Objectives The aim of the scoping review is to explore the decision-making process for the evaluation of animal research proposals within Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and to critically summarize the available empirical literature on the different factors influencing, or likely to influence, decision-making by AECs when evaluating animal research proposals. Methods A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed. Results Twelve papers were included in the final results, four of which were quantitative, five qualitative, and three were mixed methods. Qualitative content analysis revealed deficits in the assessment of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction or Refinement) or the weighing of harms and benefits. Factors related to the review process, applicants, and committees were found to influence this process. Conclusion The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees. Registration The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB</a> </div>

Figshare
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Animal testing and alternatives
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.