Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33668569›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Application of a Protocol to Assess Camel Welfare: Scoring System of Collected Measures, Aggregated Assessment Indices, and Criteria to Classify a Pen.

Laura Menchetti, Martina Zappaterra, Leonardo Nanni Costa, Barbara Padalino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. 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
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Challenges of the Camel Welfare in Western Countries.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Recent Advances in Dromedary Camels and Their Products.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  16. New animal-based measures to assess welfare in dromedary camels.Tropical animal health and production · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Laura MenchettiDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 46, I-40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8500-7970
Martina ZappaterraDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 46, I-40127 Bologna, Italy.
Leonardo Nanni CostaDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 46, I-40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5260-7248
Barbara PadalinoDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 46, I-40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7630-8285

Funding

Animals- Angels PadalinoAnimalsAngels2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to apply a protocol for assessing camel welfare, to develop a scoring system for the welfare measures, to produce overall assessment indices, and to classify the animal units (i.e., pens) according to their welfare level. A total of 105 measures were collected at Herd level from 76 pens at a market in Qatar. The pens held 528 camels, 132 of which were evaluated at a deeper level (i.e., Animal level). Out of the 105 measures, 71 were selected, scored, and aggregated to reach a Total Welfare Index (TWI) for each pen. The TWI ranged from 46.2 to 69.8. The Good Feeding index, including measures related to prolonged thirst and prolonged hunger, was the most critical (

Indexed as

animal-based indicatorscamellivestock marketoverall assessmentwelfare

Identifiers

PMID33668569
PMCPMC7918070

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.