Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36726112›Full record

ReviewVeterinary research2023

Review on the methodology to assess respiratory tract lesions in pigs and their production impact.

Dominiek Maes, Marina Sibila, Maria Pieters, Freddy Haesebrouck, Joaquim Segalés, Luís Guilherme de Oliveira

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Multi-omics integration of FBMC genomics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Dominiek MaesFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Unit of Porcine Health Management, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium. Dominiek.Maes@UGent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-9348
Marina SibilaUnitat Mixta d'Investigació IRTA-UAB en Sanitat Animal. Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), Campus de La Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, 08193, Catalonia, Spain.
Maria PietersDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory & Swine Disease Eradication Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Freddy HaesebrouckFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Unit of Porcine Health Management, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Joaquim SegalésUnitat Mixta d'Investigació IRTA-UAB en Sanitat Animal. Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), Campus de La Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, 08193, Catalonia, Spain.
Luís Guilherme de OliveiraSchool of Agricultural and Veterinarian Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, Brazil.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESGhent University · BEUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Porcine respiratory disease is one of the most important health problems in pig production worldwide. Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation (CVPC) and pleurisy are the two most common lesions in the respiratory tract of slaughtered pigs. The present review paper discusses pathogens involved in the lesions, lesion prevalence, scoring systems, advantages and disadvantages of slaughterhouse examination, and the impact of CVPC and pleurisy on performance, carcass, and meat quality. Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation and pleurisy in slaughter pigs are characteristic for infections with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, respectively, although other pathogens may cause similar lesions and/or be involved in their development. The overall prevalence of CVPC and pleurisy in slaughter pigs are still high, being the prevalence of CVPC generally higher than that of chronic pleurisy. The advantages and disadvantages of slaughterhouse examination are discussed in relation to practical aspects, the assessment of lesions, the number and representativeness of the examined animals and the interpretation and value of the results for the stakeholders. The main scoring methods for CVPC and pleurisy are shortly reviewed. In general, scoring methods can be applied rapidly and easily, although significant variation due to abattoir and observer remains. Artificial intelligence-based technologies that automatically score lesions and facilitate processing of data may aid solving these problems. Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation and pleurisy have a major negative impact on pig performance, and the effects increase the extension of the lesions and/or presence of multiple lesions. The performance losses caused by these lesions, however, vary significantly between studies and farms, possibly due to differences in study population and used methodology. Both lesions also have a negative impact on different carcass and meat quality parameters, leading to increased risk for poor processing and storage of the carcasses. Monitoring lung lesions of slaughter pigs should be optimized and implemented routinely; however, it is recommended to complement this information with farm data and laboratory results for specific pathogens.

Indexed as

Lung DiseasesPleurisySwine DiseasesAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceLungSwinecranioventral pulmonary consolidationimpactlesionlungPigspleurisyslaughterhouse

Identifiers

PMID36726112
PMCPMC9893591
OpenAlexW4318773999

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.