动物实验的科学报告中通常没有描述为优化动物福利而采取的措施。原因之一可能是期刊指南不足以迫使作者提供此类信息。在这项研究中,来自54个国家生物医学期刊的“作者指南”(GTA)的在线英语版本进行了中性(与福利无关)和非中性关键词的检查,这些关键词涉及:动物福利;“3Rs”;ARRIVE(2010)指南,和有关动物实验的法规。期刊来自9个国家(英国,US,中国,加拿大,印度,巴西,德国,日本和澳大利亚)和七个生物医学专业(肿瘤学,风湿病,手术,药理学,医学,麻醉和兽医学)。GTA单词总数从1137到31,609不等。每个类别识别的关键字计数是按无数(10,000)的总单词计数表示的。对方差进行单向分析,然后进行事后Tukey成对比较,发现(a)兽医GTA的每个单词计数与医学相比具有更大的非中性,肿瘤学,风湿病或外科;(b)英国,与澳大利亚人相比,加拿大,德国和日本的GTA;和(c)非中性类别之间没有差异。英国和兽医医学期刊的GTA英文版包含更多与动物福利相关的单词,3R和ARRIVE指南比其他八个国家和其他六个医学专业的指南。从分析中排除“国家”语言版本排除了试图确定国家对实验动物福利的态度差异的尝试。
Descriptions of measures taken to optimize animal welfare are often absent from scientific reports of animal experiments. One reason may be that journal
guidelines inadequately compel authors to provide such information. In this study, online English language versions of the \'
Guidelines to authors\' (GTAs) from 54 national biomedical journals were examined for neutral (unrelated to welfare) and non-neutral keywords referring to: animal welfare; the \'
3Rs\'; the ARRIVE (2010)
guidelines, and regulations pertaining to animal experimentation. Journals were selected from nine countries (UK, US, China, Canada, India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and Australia) and seven biomedical specialties (oncology, rheumatology, surgery, pharmacology, medicine, anaesthesia and veterinary medicine). Total GTA word counts varied from 1137 to 31,609. The keyword count identified per category were expressed per myriad (10,000) of total word count. One-way analyses of variance followed by post hoc Tukey pairwise comparisons revealed greater non-neutral per myriad word counts for (a) veterinary GTAs compared with medicine, oncology, rheumatology or surgery; (b) British, compared with Australian, Canadian, German and Japanese GTAs; and (c) no differences between non-neutral categories. The English language versions of GTAs of British and veterinary medical journals contain more words associated with animal welfare, the
3Rs and the ARRIVE guidelines than those from eight other countries and six other medical specialities. The exclusion of \'national\' language versions from analysis precludes attempts to identify national differences in attitudes to laboratory animal welfare.