Aoife Milford, Eva De Clercq, Edwin Louis-Maerten, Lester D Geneviève, Bernice S Elger
{"title":"动物伦理委员会如何做出决定——对实证研究的范围审查。","authors":"Aoife Milford, Eva De Clercq, Edwin Louis-Maerten, Lester D Geneviève, Bernice S Elger","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0318570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 3","pages":"e0318570"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913294/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Aoife Milford, Eva De Clercq, Edwin Louis-Maerten, Lester D Geneviève, Bernice S Elger\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0318570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of empirical literature published between 01.12.2012 and 03.06.2024 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings prompt pragmatic strategies to improve the decision making process of Animal ethics committees.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"e0318570\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913294/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318570","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：范围审查的目的是探讨动物伦理委员会（AEC）和机构动物护理和使用委员会（IACUC）在评估动物研究提案时的决策过程，并批判性地总结现有的关于影响或可能影响AEC在评估动物研究提案时决策的不同因素的实证文献。方法：系统检索2012年12月1日至2024年6月3日在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science中发表的经验文献。结果：最终结果纳入12篇论文，其中定量方法4篇，定性方法5篇，混合方法3篇。定性内容分析揭示了3r（替代，减少或改进）评估或危害和利益权衡的缺陷。与审查过程、申请人和委员会相关的因素被发现影响这一过程。结论：研究结果提示了改善动物伦理委员会决策过程的实用策略。注册：本综述的方案已在开放科学框架（OSF）注册，DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB。
How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies.
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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZJMB.
期刊介绍：
PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
* Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
* Fast publication times
* Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
* Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
* Community-based dialogue on articles
* Worldwide media coverage
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
