Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36387395›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Interpretive review: Semiochemicals in domestic pigs and dogs.

John J McGlone, Courtney Archer, Madelyn Henderson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John J McGloneLaboratory of Animal Behavior, Physiology and Welfare, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.
Courtney ArcherLaboratory of Animal Behavior, Physiology and Welfare, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.
Madelyn HendersonLaboratory of Animal Behavior, Physiology and Welfare, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.
Texas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This interpretive review includes discussion of the available scientific literature with interpretations by the authors. The broad field of semiochemicals can be confusing to scientists and consumers. This review attempts to summarize the known scientific studies for pig and dog semiochemicals while at the same time attempting to refine our use of terminology. The specific objectives of this interpretive review are to summarize and interpret much of the key scientific literature (but not the lay literature) on semiochemicals in pigs and dogs to include (1) definitions of semiochemicals and related molecules including pheromones, (2) to briefly summarize olfactory organs, and (3) and to examine the scientific literature for semiochemical mechanisms and applications in dogs and pigs (two domesticated species with known olfactory acuity). Dogs and pigs have olfactory features that are similar in that they both lack certain olfactory organs (Grueneberg ganglion and Septal Organ) and they have a small vomeronasal organ (VNO) without some major receptors that are found in other species. The primary olfactory organs for both pigs and dogs are the main olfactory epithelium and perhaps the trigeminal nerve. Several examples of pheromones activating the brain

Indexed as

doginteromoneolfactionpheromonepigsemiochemical

Identifiers

PMID36387395
PMCPMC9640746
OpenAlexW4307370481

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.