Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511825›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Systematic review of animal-based indicators to measure thermal, social, and immune-related stress in pigs.

Raúl David Guevara, Jose J Pastor, Xavier Manteca, Gemma Tedo, Pol Llonch

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Welfare Assessment in Pigs Using the Salivary Proteome.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Raúl David GuevaraDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Bellaterra (UAB), Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6536-8864
Jose J PastorInnovation Division, Lucta S.A., UAB Research Park, Campus UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2448-2334
Xavier MantecaDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Bellaterra (UAB), Spain.
Gemma TedoInnovation Division, Lucta S.A., UAB Research Park, Campus UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7247-9298
Pol LlonchDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Bellaterra (UAB), Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5958-861X
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESIMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intense nature of pig production has increased the animals' exposure to stressful conditions, which may be detrimental to their welfare and productivity. Some of the most common sources of stress in pigs are extreme thermal conditions (thermal stress), density and mixing during housing (social stress), or exposure to pathogens and other microorganisms that may challenge their immune system (immune-related stress). The stress response can be monitored based on the animals' coping mechanisms, as a result of specific environmental, social, and health conditions. These animal-based indicators may support decision making to maintain animal welfare and productivity. The present study aimed to systematically review animal-based indicators of social, thermal, and immune-related stresses in farmed pigs, and the methods used to monitor them. Peer-reviewed scientific literature related to pig production was collected using three online search engines: ScienceDirect, Scopus, and PubMed. The manuscripts selected were grouped based on the indicators measured during the study. According to our results, body temperature measured with a rectal thermometer was the most commonly utilized method for the evaluation of thermal stress in pigs (87.62%), as described in 144 studies. Of the 197 studies that evaluated social stress, aggressive behavior was the most frequently-used indicator (81.81%). Of the 535 publications examined regarding immune-related stress, cytokine concentration in blood samples was the most widely used indicator (80.1%). Information about the methods used to measure animal-based indicators is discussed in terms of validity, reliability, and feasibility. Additionally, the introduction and wide spreading of alternative, less invasive methods with which to measure animal-based indicators, such as cortisol in saliva, skin temperature and respiratory rate via infrared thermography, and various animal welfare threats via vocalization analysis are highlighted. The information reviewed was used to discuss the feasible and most reliable methods with which to monitor the impact of relevant stressors commonly presented by intense production systems on the welfare of farmed pigs.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareBody TemperatureAnimalsHydrocortisoneReproducibility of ResultsStress, PsychologicalSwineHydrocortisone

Identifiers

PMID35511825
PMCPMC9070874
OpenAlexW4229063038

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.