Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29930261›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Approach-aversion in calves following injections.

Thomas Ede, Marina A G von Keyserlingk, Daniel M Weary

Abstract readClinical Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Animal affect, welfare and the Bayesian brain.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Calves peak-end memory of pain.Scientific reports · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Calf aversion to hot-iron disbudding.Scientific reports · 2019
    Article
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

3 authors.

Thomas EdeAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Marina A G von KeyserlingkAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Daniel M WearyAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. dan.weary@ubc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed aversion to injections using an avoidance-learning paradigm. Holstein calves (n = 24) were randomly assigned to one of four routes of administration for 0.5 ml of saline: intramuscular (IM), intranasal (IN), subcutaneous (SC) and a null control. Calves were first trained to approach a milk reward of 1 L. Once the latency to approach the reward was consistent, calves received their assigned treatment when approaching the bottle. For the first 3 treatment sessions calves received a 1 L milk reward. This reward was then reduced to 500 mL, and then to 250 mL, and finally to 0 mL, each for 3 sessions. Compared to control calves, calves receiving the intramuscular injections showed a longer latency to approach the milk reward, but only when the milk reward was 0.25 L (P = 0.05) and 0 L (P < 0.01). Calves receiving the intranasal injections showed longer latencies relative to the controls only for the 0 L reward (P = 0.01). Calves receiving the subcutaneous injections did not differ from controls for any of the milk rewards (P > 0.2). We conclude that IM injections are aversive and that SC and IN routes are a refinement to be considered when feasible.

Indexed as

Avoidance LearningAdministration, IntranasalAnimalsCattleInjections, IntramuscularInjections, SubcutaneousRandom AllocationReaction TimeReward

Identifiers

PMID29930261
PMCPMC6013468

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.