Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35968016›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Dominic Gascho, Roger Stephan, Clemens Bauer, Michelle Aimée Oesch, Henning Richter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Slaughtering of Water Buffalo (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  3. 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.

Dominic GaschoDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Roger StephanInstitute for Food Safety and Hygiene, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clemens BauerVeterinary Services, Environmental and Health Protection, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michelle Aimée OeschScientific Communication and Public Relations, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Henning RichterDiagnostic Imaging Research Unit (DIRU), Clinic for Diagnostic Imaging, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The stunning of heavy cattle and water buffalo is an animal welfare problem, as conventional cartridge fired captive-bolt stunners are not suitable due to the thicker skull bones and the greater depth of penetration required to reach and damage the relevant brain regions for deep unconsciousness. This current animal welfare problem requires a suitable and feasible as well as commercially available and legally approved stunning device to ensure deep unconsciousness of these animals. In this study, the use of a newly developed bullet-shooting stunner, the

Indexed as

animal welfareconcussiondesensitizationheavy bullsslaughtering

Identifiers

PMID35968016
PMCPMC9363664

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.