Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532351›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Investigating risk factors behind piglet facial and sow teat lesions through a literature review and a survey on teeth reduction.

Jen-Yun Chou, Jeremy N Marchant, Elena Nalon, Thuy T T Huynh, Heleen A van de Weerd, Laura A Boyle, Sarah H Ison

Open access · goldAbstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Welfare of pigs on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Jen-Yun ChouPig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Fermoy, Ireland.
Jeremy N MarchantUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Elena NalonEurogroup for Animals, Brussels, Belgium.
Thuy T T HuynhFarm Technology, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Heleen A van de WeerdCerebrus Associates Ltd., Godalming, United Kingdom.
Laura A BoylePig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Fermoy, Ireland.
Sarah H IsonWorld Animal Protection International, London, United Kingdom.
Agricultural Research Service · USTeagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IEUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATWageningen University & Research · NLWorld Animal Protection

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Piglet facial and sow teat lesions are the main reported reasons why pig producers routinely practice teeth resection. This is a painful procedure performed on piglets, where their needle teeth are clipped or ground to resect the pointed tip. The practice raises welfare concerns. In contrast to other procedures, such as tail docking, we know little about the risk factors for these two types of lesions. Methods: We employed two methods to answer these questions: (1) reviewing the literature to identify potential risk factors, and (2) surveying pig production stakeholders worldwide to identify the occurrence of these lesions and the strategies used in practice that enable pig producers to manage or prevent these lesions while avoiding teeth resection. For the literature review, we used Google Scholar to include peer-reviewed publications and gray literature. We distributed the survey using convenience sampling and documented information on the current situation regarding teeth resection, including the methods, frequencies, and reasons for resecting piglets' teeth, the occurrence of piglet facial and sow teat lesions, and measures used to prevent and control these lesions. Results: The literature review identified six major risk factors for both lesions, including the presence or absence of teeth resection, housing system, litter size, piglet management, environmental enrichment, milk production and other piglet management practices. However, most studies focused on the effects of the first two factors with very few studies investigating the other risk factors. There were 75 responses to the survey from 17 countries. The survey showed that half of the respondents practiced teeth resection with many recognizing that facial and teat lesions are the main reasons behind this practice. However, many producers used other interventions rather than teeth resection to prevent these lesions. These interventions focused on improving milk production of the sow, managing large litters, and providing environmental enrichment. Discussion: More research is needed to validate these interventions and more science-based advice is needed to bridge the gap between research and practice to help more producers further understand the cause of piglet facial and sow teat lesions to transition toward the cessation of routine teeth resection.

Indexed as

painful procedurepig healthpig welfareskin lacerationteat fightudder wound

Identifiers

PMID36532351
PMCPMC9755856
OpenAlexW4311111492

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.