Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32974403›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Profiling Detection and Classification of Lameness Methods in British Dairy Cattle Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

João Sucena Afonso, Mieghan Bruce, Patrick Keating, Didier Raboisson, Helen Clough, George Oikonomou, Jonathan Rushton

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lameness in Cattle-Etiopathogenesis, Prevention and Treatment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

João Sucena AfonsoDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Mieghan BruceSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Patrick KeatingMédecins Sans Frontières - OCA, Manson Unit, London, United Kingdom.
Didier RaboissonIHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Helen CloughDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
George OikonomouDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jonathan RushtonDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
University of Liverpool · GBInteraction Hôtes Agents Pathogènes · FRMédecins Sans Frontières · UGMurdoch University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lameness is a serious concern in the dairy sector, reflecting its high incidence and impact on animal welfare and productivity. Research has provided figures on its frequency using different methodologies, making it difficult to compare results and hindering farm-level decision-making. The study's objectives were to determine the frequency levels of lameness in British dairy cattle through a meta-analysis approach, and to understand the chronological patterns of how lameness cases are detected and classified in scientific research. A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA-P guidelines for article selection. Random-effects models estimated the pooled frequency measure of lameness with heterogeneity managed through subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Sixty-eight papers were identified, 50 included prevalence and 36 incidence data. The pooled prevalence of lameness in British dairy cattle was estimated at 29.5% (95% CI 26.7-32.4%) whilst all-cause lameness incidence rate indicated 30.9 cases of lameness per 100 cow-years (95% CI 24.5-37.9). The pooled cause-specific lameness incidence rate per 100 cow-years was 66.1 (95% CI 24.1-128.8) for white line disease, 53.2 (95% CI 20.5-101.2) for sole ulcer, 53.6 (95% CI 19.2-105.34) for digital dermatitis, with 51.9 (95% CI 9.3-129.2) attributable to other lameness-related lesions. Heterogeneity levels remained high. Sixty-nine papers contributed to a chronological overview of lameness data source. Although the AHDB Dairy mobility scoring system (MSS) was launched in the UK in 2008 and adopted shortly after by the British Dairy sector as the standard tool for assessing lameness, other methods are used depending on the investigator. Automated lameness detection systems may offer a solution for the subjective nature of MSSs, yet it was utilized in one study only. Despite the recognition of under-reporting of lameness from farm records 22 (31.9%) studies used this data source. The diversity of lameness data collection methods and sources was a key finding. It limits the understanding of lameness burden and the refinement of policy making for lameness. Standardizing case definition and research methods would improve knowledge of and ability to manage lameness. Regardless of the measurement method lameness in British dairy cattle is high.

Indexed as

Britishcattleclassificationdairylamenesslocomotionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32974403
PMCPMC7468474
OpenAlexW3080247293

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.