Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34055949›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2021

A Systematic Review on Validated Precision Livestock Farming Technologies for Pig Production and Its Potential to Assess Animal Welfare.

Yaneth Gómez, Anna H Stygar, Iris J M M Boumans, Eddie A M Bokkers, Lene J Pedersen, Jarkko K Niemi, Matti Pastell, Xavier Manteca, Pol Llonch

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Sustainability and future outlook of the Philippine pig industry.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Yaneth GómezDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Anna H StygarBioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland.
Iris J M M BoumansAnimal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Eddie A M BokkersAnimal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Lene J PedersenDepartment of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Jarkko K NiemiBioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland.
Matti PastellProduction Systems, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland.
Xavier MantecaDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Pol LlonchDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Natural Resources Institute Finland · FIUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESWageningen University & Research · NLAarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies, conceived for optimizing farming processes, are developed to detect the physical and behavioral changes of animals continuously and in real-time. The aim of this review was to explore the capacity of existing PLF technologies to contribute to the assessment of pig welfare. In a web search for commercially available PLF for pigs, 83 technologies were identified. A literature search was conducted, following systematic review guidelines (PRISMA), to identify studies on the validation of sensor technologies for assessing animal-based welfare indicators. Two validation levels were defined: internal (evaluation during system building within the same population that were used for system building) and external (evaluation on a different population than during system building). From 2,463 articles found, 111 were selected, which validated some PLF that could be applied to the assessment of animal-based welfare indicators of pigs (7% classified as external, and 93% as internal validation). From our list of commercially available PLF technologies, only 5% had been externally validated. The more often validated technologies were vision-based solutions (

Indexed as

fattening pigspigletsPLFsensorsowsvalidationwelfare

Identifiers

PMID34055949
PMCPMC8160240
OpenAlexW3162552700

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.