Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36496912›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Impact of Procedures and Human-Animal Interactions during Transport and Slaughter on Animal Welfare of Pigs: A Systematic Literature Review.

Rudi Isbrandt, Mechthild Wiegard, Diana Meemken, Nina Langkabel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rudi IsbrandtInstitute of Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Mechthild WiegardInstitute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1934-9187
Diana MeemkenInstitute of Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4824-048X
Nina LangkabelInstitute of Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1986-180X
Institut für Hygiene und Umwelt · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture 2817806A18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal welfare is a high social and political priority and is enshrined in European and national legislation. This systematic literature review (funded by the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture; grant no. 2817806A18) was conducted to find animal and management-based indicators that could be influenced by changes in pig handling and management procedures on the day of slaughter and, therefore, will directly result in improved animal welfare. For this systematic literature review, following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a structured literature search using the databases PubMed

Indexed as

fattening pighandlingindicatormanagement

Identifiers

PMID36496912
PMCPMC9740978
OpenAlexW4311108627

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.