Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27965968›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2016

A Review of Pain Assessment in Pigs.

Sarah H Ison, R Eddie Clutton, Pierpaolo Di Giminiani, Kenneth M D Rutherford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah H IsonAnimal Behaviour and Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK; Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK.
R Eddie CluttonEaster Bush Veterinary Centre, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh , Midlothian , UK.
Pierpaolo Di GiminianiFood and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Kenneth M D RutherfordAnimal Behaviour and Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC) , Edinburgh , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a moral obligation to minimize pain in pigs used for human benefit. In livestock production, pigs experience pain caused by management procedures, e.g., castration and tail docking, injuries from fighting or poor housing conditions, "management diseases" like mastitis or streptococcal meningitis, and at parturition. Pigs used in biomedical research undergo procedures that are regarded as painful in humans, but do not receive similar levels of analgesia, and pet pigs also experience potentially painful conditions. In all contexts, accurate pain assessment is a prerequisite in (a) the estimation of the welfare consequences of noxious interventions and (b) the development of more effective pain mitigation strategies. This narrative review identifies the sources of pain in pigs, discusses the various assessment measures currently available, and proposes directions for future investigation.

Indexed as

painpain assessmentpigreviewwelfare

Identifiers

PMID27965968
PMCPMC5124671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.