How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved
Open accessAbstract
Harm-benefit analysis (HBA) underpins the ethical framework of the regulation of animal experiments. This process involves a qualitative, and generally subjective, assessment of the potential benefits weighed against likely harms to be caused to animals. However, there is scope to prospectively quantify this process. A systematic and empirical assessment of historical data can give insights into why benefits are not realised and the magnitude of harm that animals experience. There is substantial scholarly evidence that risks to the 3Vs, the three core aspects of experimental validity in animal experiments (internal, external and construct validity) and low statistical power are limiting the reliability and reproducibility of research. Assessment of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) is embedded in HBA and specifically seeks to minimise harm to the animals. However, no formal structure is in place to assess the likelihood of benefit, and we champion the 3Vs as a scale with which this may be achieved. Ethical approval procedures that consider the 3Vs and 3Rs using meta-research may be an approach to facilitate HBA. In ethical considerations related to animal research, there are value judgements that are integral to HBA, which cannot be measured directly. However, a quantitative and systematic approach is likely to be of added value. The perspective and examples described in this paper relate to laboratory animal research, but the approaches may lend themselves to different settings involving animals to ensure that decision-making and changes introduced, for example, to improve animal welfare, are evidence-based.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If research is not reported in enough detail, even when conducted rigorously, the benefits may not be realised, and the harm-benefit analysis and public trust in the research are undermined.
“If the research is not reported in enough detail, even when conducted rigorously, the benefits may not be realised, and the harm–benefit analysis and public trust in the research are undermined [41].”
From The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
The Benefit section (page unavailable) says findings that are never disseminated cannot contribute to knowledge and argues that dissemination should be considered in harm–benefit analysis. It also discusses inadequate reporting of bias-reduction measures. The copy does not establish the more specific claim that insufficient detail prevents benefits even when a study was conducted rigorously, or that it undermines public trust. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505 · see citing works
The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique
(1960) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1960.tb73127.x · Cited by 5,002 · see citing works
Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment
Crabbe, J. C., Wahlsten, D., & Dudek, B. C. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5420.1670 · Cited by 1,666 · see citing works
1,026 Experimental treatments in acute stroke
O’Collins, V. E., Macleod, M. R., Donnan, G. A., Horky, L. L., van der Worp, H. B., & Howells, D. W. (2006) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.20741 · Cited by 1,453 · see citing works
Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O'Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 · Cited by 1,354 · see citing works
Self-citationGuidelines for the Design and Statistical Analysis of Experiments Using Laboratory Animals
Festing, M. F. W., & Altman, D. G. (2002) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 · Cited by 1,110 · see citing works
Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M. W., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 · Cited by 600 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These biases lead to the totality of evidence overestimating treatment effects by about one-third (Sena et al 2010) and an over-representation of statistically significant results than would be expected (Tsilidis et al 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMeta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
The validity of animal models of predisposition to depression
Willner, P., & Mitchell, P. J. (2002) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/00008877-200205000-00001 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments?
Richter, S. H., Garner, J. P., & Würbel, H. (2009) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1312 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2007) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.06.009 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Self-citationRisk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement
Macleod, M. R., Lawson McLean, A., Kyriakopoulou, A., Serghiou, S., de Wilde, A., Sherratt, N., Hirst, T., Hemblade, R., Bahor, Z., Nunes-Fonseca, C., et al. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Self-citationMacleod, M. R., van der Worp, H. B., Sena, E. S., Howells, D. W., Dirnagl, U., & Donnan, G. A. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.515957 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Self-citationEvaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases
Tsilidis, K. K., Panagiotou, O. A., Sena, E. S., Aretouli, E., Evangelou, E., Howells, D. W., Salman, R. A.-S., Macleod, M. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001609 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Self-citationMacrae, I. (2011) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01398.x · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples
Voelkl, B., Vogt, L., Sena, E. S., & Würbel, H. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2003693 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Self-citationBaumans, V. (2005) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar.46.2.162 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Principles of Laboratory Animal Science
van Zutphen, L. F. M., Baumans, V., Beynen, A. C., & Restani, P. (1996) · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.23383 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation
Kimmelman, J., Mogil, J. S., & Dirnagl, U. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001863 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Behaviour and the standardization fallacy
Würbel, H. (2000) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/81541 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke Studies
Crossley, N. A., Sena, E. S., Göhler, J., Horn, J., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M., Macleod, M. R., & Dirnagl, U. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.498725 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments
Richter, S. H., Garner, J. P., Auer, C., Kunert, J., & Würbel, H. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth0310-167 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
D. Chambers, C., 1 Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, S. O. P., Feredoes, E., D. Muthukumaraswamy, S., & J. Etchells, P. (2014) · AIMS Neuroscience · doi:10.3934/neuroscience.2014.1.4 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Improving the translational hit of experimental treatments in multiple sclerosis
Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., ffrench-Constant, C., Williams, A., Chandran, S., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458510379612 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Self-citationHooijmans, C. R., de Vries, R. B. M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., Rovers, M. M., Leeflang, M. M., IntHout, J., Wever, K. E., Hooft, L., de Beer, H., Kuijpers, T., et al. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187271 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Self-citationWhen to experiment on animals.
Bateson, P. (1986) · PubMed · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Moorthy, V. S., Karam, G., Vannice, K. S., & Kieny, M.-P. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research
Würbel, H. (2017) · Lab Animal · doi:10.1038/laban.1220 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Richter, S. H., Garner, J. P., Zipser, B., Lewejohann, L., Sachser, N., Touma, C., Schindler, B., Chourbaji, S., Brandwein, C., Gass, P., et al. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016461 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Antonic‐Baker, A., Sena, E. S., Lees, J. S., Wills, T. E., Skeers, P., Batchelor, P., Macleod, M. R., & Howells, D. W. (2013) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001738 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Self-citationHirst, T. C., Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., Egan, K. J., Macleod, M. R., & Whittle, I. R. (2013) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.504 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Self-citationReproducibility Crisis: Are We Ignoring Reaction Norms?
Voelkl, B., & Würbel, H. (2016) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.05.003 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Wodarski, R., Delaney, A., Ultenius, C., Morland, R., Andrews, N., Baastrup, C., Bryden, L. A., Caspani, O., Christoph, T., Gardiner, N. J., et al. (2016) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000657 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Currie, G. L., Angel-Scott, H. N., Colvin, L., Cramond, F., Hair, K., Khandoker, L., Liao, J., Macleod, M. R., McCann, S., Morland, R., et al. (2019) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000243 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Self-citationDopamine agonists in animal models of Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Rooke, E. D., Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., Egan, K. J., & Macleod, M. R. (2011) · Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.010 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationMcCann, S., Cramond, F., Macleod, M. R., & Sena, E. S. (2016) · Translational Stroke Research · doi:10.1007/s12975-016-0489-z · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Self-citationNo publication without confirmation
Mogil, J. S., & Macleod, M. R. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/542409a · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor
Vogt, L., Reichlin, T., Nathues, C., & Würbel, H. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000598 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: do they enable risk–benefit assessment?
Wieschowski, S., Chin, W. W. L., Federico, C., Sievers, S., Kimmelman, J., & Strech, D. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004879 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions
Pound, P., & Nicol, C. J. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193758 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Addressing reproducibility in single-laboratory phenotyping experiments
Kafkafi, N., Golani, I., Jaljuli, I., Morgan, H., Sarig, T., Würbel, H., Yaacoby, S., & Benjamini, Y. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4259 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Questioning standardization in science
Paylor, R. E. (2009) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth0409-253 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Methodological Quality of Experimental Stroke Studies Published in the Stroke Journal
Minnerup, J., Zentsch, V., Schmidt, A., Fisher, M., & Schäbitz, W. (2015) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.011695 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Wieschowski, S., Silva, D. S., & Strech, D. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000391 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Bateson, P. (2005) · Advances in the study of behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(05)35005-4 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
van Luijk, J. A. K. R., Cuijpers, Y., van der Vaart, L., Leenaars, M., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. J. (2011) · Alternatives to Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/026119291103900505 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research
Davies, G. F. (2018) · Lab Animal · doi:10.1038/s41684-018-0002-2 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
The NC3Rs gateway: Accelerating scientific discoveries with new 3Rs models and technologies
du Sert, N. P., & Robinson, V. (2018) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.14964.1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Festing MFW and Altman DG 2005 Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory aminals. ILAR Journal/National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 43: 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Cited by 5,939 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Experimental Physiology · doi:10.1113/ep088870 · Cited by 3,538 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research*
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1177/0271678x20943823 · Cited by 1,443 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.15193 · Cited by 1,121 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal researchPreprint
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/703181 · Cited by 1,042 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jp280389 · Cited by 623 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/s12917-020-02451-y · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Self-citationdu Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · BMJ Open Science · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Self-citationFranco, N. H., Miranda, S. B., Kovács, N., Nagy, A. C., Thiện, B. Q., Reis, F., & Varga, O. (2021) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology10020155 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Eggel, M., & Würbel, H. (2020) · Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/0023677220968583 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
McCann, S., & Lawrence, C. B. (2020) · BMJ Open Science · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2019-100013 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Between two stools: preclinical research, reproducibility, and statistical design of experiments
Reynolds, P. S. (2022) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-022-05965-w · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Graham, J. C., Wong, L., Adedeji, A. O., Kusi, A., Lee, B., Lee, D. W., & Dybdal, N. O. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13243863 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Harvey‐Carroll, J., Carroll, D., Trivella, C.-M., & Connelly, E. (2025) · Wildlife Biology · doi:10.1002/wlb3.01404 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Statistics, statistical thinking, and the IACUC
Reynolds, P. S. (2021) · Lab Animal · doi:10.1038/s41684-021-00832-w · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Behavioral Management is a Key Component of Ethical Research
Schapiro, S. J., Webb, S. J. N., Mulholland, M. M., & Lambeth, S. P. (2019) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilaa023 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Jörgensen, S., Weber, E. M., Lindsjö, J., Hedman, F. L., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15192771 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
(2026) · International Journal of Veterinary Science · doi:10.47278/journal.ijvs/2026.017 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Ethics review of animal research
Olsson, I. A. S., Olsson, S., Sandøe, P., Hawkins, P., & Jennings, M. (2024) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119555278.ch18 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The Sample Size Problem in Animal‐Based Research
Reynolds, P. S. (2023) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119800002.ch1
Research Reproducibility and the Role of the IACUC
Pearl, E. J., Prescott, M. J., du Sert, N. P., & Reynolds, P. S. (2025) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003272861-39
Additional file 1 of The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12650470
Self-citationAdditional file 4 of The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12650479
Self-citationAdditional file 2 of The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12650473
Self-citationJörgensen, S., Röcklinsberg, H., Weber, E. M., Iversen, C., & Hedman, F. L. (2026) · Frontiers in Animal Science · doi:10.3389/fanim.2026.1864730
Volonteri, M., Songhorian, S., & Grimm, H. (2026) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.1017/awf.2026.10118
- Authors
- Sena, E., & Currie, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Venue
- Animal Welfare
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-115
- ISSN
- 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
- 2054-1538
- OpenAlex
- W2909036340
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 5.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Stroke Association (SA L-SNC 18\1003)
- National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/L000970/1)
- Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
- Keywords
- harm-benefit analysis, animal research regulation, 3Rs, internal validity, generalizability, construct validity, statistical power, reproducibility, meta-research, research ethics approval, benefit assessment, value judgments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
