SynthesisPloS one2023
Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review using the COSMIN checklist.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the performance of deep learning video-based models and trained veterinarians in cattle pain assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A systematic review of acute pain scoring instruments and their measurement properties in cats and dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of bacterial and viral diseases on dromedary camel (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Part I: understanding pain in pigs-basic knowledge about pain assessment, measures and therapy.Porcine health management · 2025Review
- Comparison between AI and human expert performance in acute pain assessment in sheep.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Liposomal-synthetic-cannabidiol: preliminary translational evidence of efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics following repeated subcutaneous injections in two goats.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of the Unesp-Botucatu acute pain scale in sheep undergoing orthopedic surgery.PloS one · 2025Article
- Assessing the parent-infant relationship: a two-stage, COSMIN-informed systematic review evaluating clinician-rated measures.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Bovine pain scale: A novel tool for pain assessment in cattle undergoing surgery in the hospital setting.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advancing outcome measure development and analytical approaches: Pain in Animals Workshop 2023.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of observation duration on behavioural pain assessment and intra-observer reliability in castrated piglets: A pilot study.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
- Real-time and video-recorded pain assessment in beef cattle: clinical application and reliability in young, adult bulls undergoing surgical castration.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Use of butorphanol as a local anaesthetic for pain management in calves undergoing umbilical hernia repair.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Less experienced observers assess piglet castration-induced acute pain differently than experienced observers: A pilot study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Effects of assessment method (real-time versus video-recorded) on a validated pain-altered behavior scale used in castrated piglets.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the Unesp-Botucatu Goat Acute Pain Scale.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Development, refinement, and validation of an equine musculoskeletal pain scale.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to investigate the measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. According to the PRISMA guidelines, a registered report protocol was previously published in this journal. Studies reporting the development and validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments based on behavioral and/or facial expressions of farm animals were searched. Data extraction and assessment were performed individually by two investigators using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Nine categories were assessed: two for scale development (general design requirements and development, and content validity and comprehensibility) and seven for measurement properties (internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness and cross-cultural validity). The overall strength of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) of each instrument was scored based on methodological quality, number of studies and studies' findings. Twenty instruments for three species (bovine, ovine and swine) were included. There was considerable variability concerning their development and measurement properties. Three behavior-based instruments scored high for strength of evidence: UCAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Unidimensional Composite Pain Scale for assessing postoperative pain in cattle), USAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Sheep Acute Composite Pain Scale) and UPAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale). Four instruments scored moderate for strength of evidence: MPSS (Multidimensional Pain Scoring System for bovine), SPFES (Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale), LGS (Lamb Grimace Scale) and PGS-B (Piglet Grimace Scale-B). Most instruments (n = 13) scored low or very low for final overall evidence. Construct validity was the most reported measurement property followed by criterion validity and reliability. Instruments with reported validation are urgently required for pain assessment of buffalos, goats, camelids and avian species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.