欧洲动物实验的非技术性总结是否有所改进?最新情况。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.14573/altex.2310181
Katy Taylor, Tilo Weber, Laura Rego Alvarez
{"title":"欧洲动物实验的非技术性总结是否有所改进?最新情况。","authors":"Katy Taylor, Tilo Weber, Laura Rego Alvarez","doi":"10.14573/altex.2310181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following a review of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific pur­poses in the European Union (EU), non-technical project summaries (NTS) of all approved projects must be published in a central database using a standard template. Our initial review of the NTS reported in ALTEX in 2018 had found the NTS to be deficient in their accessibility and quality, notably the “adverse effects” section where the harms to the animals are meant to be described. Here we repeat our review to see if these legislative changes have improved the accessibility and quality of the NTS. As before, we focused on the NTS from the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany; even though the UK has left the EU, it is using the same template. We found significant improvement in the reporting of five of the six elements we identified as essential to the “predicted harms” section. However, there was no significant improvement in the reporting of adverse effects. Only 41% of German NTS and 48% of UK NTS are fully reporting this important element of the “predicted harms” section. In our view, researchers need support in describing the impact of their research on the animals and to assist here we include a checklist for competent authorities and a list of suggested terminology for standard administration and sampling procedures. Unless the NTS improve further, their utility as a tool for sharing of good practices in the 3Rs or to support evidence-based policy­making will remain limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":" ","pages":"382-394"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Have the non-technical summaries of animal experiments in Europe improved? An update\",\"authors\":\"Katy Taylor, Tilo Weber, Laura Rego Alvarez\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2310181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Following a review of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific pur­poses in the European Union (EU), non-technical project summaries (NTS) of all approved projects must be published in a central database using a standard template. Our initial review of the NTS reported in ALTEX in 2018 had found the NTS to be deficient in their accessibility and quality, notably the “adverse effects” section where the harms to the animals are meant to be described. Here we repeat our review to see if these legislative changes have improved the accessibility and quality of the NTS. As before, we focused on the NTS from the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany; even though the UK has left the EU, it is using the same template. We found significant improvement in the reporting of five of the six elements we identified as essential to the “predicted harms” section. However, there was no significant improvement in the reporting of adverse effects. Only 41% of German NTS and 48% of UK NTS are fully reporting this important element of the “predicted harms” section. In our view, researchers need support in describing the impact of their research on the animals and to assist here we include a checklist for competent authorities and a list of suggested terminology for standard administration and sampling procedures. Unless the NTS improve further, their utility as a tool for sharing of good practices in the 3Rs or to support evidence-based policy­making will remain limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"382-394\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2310181\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2310181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在对欧盟(EU)关于保护用于科学目的的动物的第 2010/63/EU 号指令进行审查后,所有获批项目的非技术性项目摘要(NTS)必须使用标准模板在中央数据库中发布。我们在 2018 年对 ALTEX 报告的 NTS 进行了初步审查,发现 NTS 在可访问性和质量方面存在不足,尤其是不良影响部分,因为该部分旨在描述对动物的伤害。在此,我们重复了我们的审查,以了解这些立法变化是否改善了 NTS 的可访问性和质量。与之前一样,我们重点关注了英国和德国的国家试验计划;尽管英国已脱离欧盟,但仍在使用相同的模板。我们发现,在我们认为对预测危害部分至关重要的六个要素中,有五个要素的报告有了明显改善。然而,在不良反应的报告方面却没有明显改善。只有 41% 的德国 NTS 和 48% 的英国 NTS 全面报告了危害预测部分的这一重要内容。我们认为,研究人员在描述其研究对动物的影响时需要得到支持,为了在这方面提供帮助,我们为主管当局提供了一份核对表,并为标准管理和采样程序提供了一份建议术语清单。除非 NTS 得到进一步改进,否则其作为共享 3Rs 良好实践或支持循证政策制定的工具的效用仍将有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Have the non-technical summaries of animal experiments in Europe improved? An update

Following a review of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific pur­poses in the European Union (EU), non-technical project summaries (NTS) of all approved projects must be published in a central database using a standard template. Our initial review of the NTS reported in ALTEX in 2018 had found the NTS to be deficient in their accessibility and quality, notably the “adverse effects” section where the harms to the animals are meant to be described. Here we repeat our review to see if these legislative changes have improved the accessibility and quality of the NTS. As before, we focused on the NTS from the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany; even though the UK has left the EU, it is using the same template. We found significant improvement in the reporting of five of the six elements we identified as essential to the “predicted harms” section. However, there was no significant improvement in the reporting of adverse effects. Only 41% of German NTS and 48% of UK NTS are fully reporting this important element of the “predicted harms” section. In our view, researchers need support in describing the impact of their research on the animals and to assist here we include a checklist for competent authorities and a list of suggested terminology for standard administration and sampling procedures. Unless the NTS improve further, their utility as a tool for sharing of good practices in the 3Rs or to support evidence-based policy­making will remain limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信