Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33233523›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

A Systematic Literature Review on Depopulation Methods for Swine.

Andréia G Arruda, Tariku J Beyene, Justin Kieffer, Joshua N Lorbach, Steven Moeller, Andrew S Bowman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Technical note: Construction of a COTranslational animal science · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andréia G ArrudaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7040-9686
Tariku J BeyeneCenter for Surgical Outcomes Research, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Justin KiefferDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Joshua N LorbachDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Steven MoellerDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Andrew S BowmanDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0738-8453
The Ohio State University · USNationwide Children's Hospital · US

Funding

National Pork Board 20-102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swine mass depopulation refers to the destruction of large numbers of pigs and may include not only animals affected with a disease but also healthy pigs in a facility or surrounding areas. Emerging applications of mass depopulation include reducing welfare issues associated with slaughter delays, which was observed in the United States in 2020 as a result of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The objectives of this review were to summarize the available literature on swine depopulation methods and to highlight critical gaps in knowledge. Peer-reviewed articles were identified through a systematic search in electronic databases including Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. A total of 68 publications were assessed. Gaseous carbon dioxide inhalation was the most commonly reported depopulation method for both small- and large-scale trials. Measurements of consciousness state, which serves to assess suffering and humaneness, appeared to be lacking in a high proportion of the studies. None of the published studies demonstrated an ideally reliable and safe way to induce rapid unconsciousness in large groups of pigs. Development of rapid mass depopulation methods applicable to large groups of pigs is necessary to provide industry partners with suitable and low-cost emergency preparedness procedures while adhering to personnel safety and animal welfare standards. Lastly, there is an urgent need to standardize comprehensive reporting guidelines for depopulation studies.

Indexed as

emergency preparednessswine depopulationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33233523
PMCPMC7699593
OpenAlexW3098859898

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.