Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827911›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Comparison of Gaseous and Water-Based Medium-Expansion Foam Depopulation Methods in Cull Sows.

Joshua N Lorbach, Magnus R Campler, Brad Youngblood, Morgan B Farnell, Tariku J Beyene, Justin Kieffer, Steven J Moeller, Andréia G Arruda, Andrew S Bowman

Open access · goldAbstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua N LorbachDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6024-6948
Magnus R CamplerDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3575-7890
Brad YoungbloodDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Morgan B FarnellDepartment of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7730-7383
Tariku J BeyeneCenter for Surgical Outcomes Research, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7474-1966
Justin KiefferDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Steven J MoellerDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.
Andréia G ArrudaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7040-9686
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 · USTexas A&M University · US

Funding

National Pork Checkoff 20-100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The U.S. swine industry is currently inadequately prepared to counteract the increasing threat of high-consequence diseases. Although approved and preferred depopulation guidelines exist, ventilation shutdown (VSD+) is currently the only method being deployed during a state of emergency to depopulate large swine populations. However, the permitted use of VSD+ during constrained circumstances has been criticized due to raised swine welfare concerns. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide gas (CO

Indexed as

aspirated foamdepopulationdiseaseswine

Identifiers

PMID34827911
PMCPMC8614275
OpenAlexW3214549126

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.