ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023
Can We Reliably Detect Respiratory Diseases through Precision Farming? A Systematic Review.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances of Caspase-11 for veterinary respiratory infections.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Real-Time Auto-Monitoring of Livestock: Quantitative Framework and Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Early detection of bovine respiratory disease in pre-weaned dairy calves using sensor based feeding, movement, and social behavioural data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Data recording and use of data tools for pig health management: perspectives of stakeholders in pig farming.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory diseases commonly affect livestock species, negatively impacting animal's productivity and welfare. The use of precision livestock farming (PLF) applied in respiratory disease detection has been developed for several species. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if PLF technologies can reliably monitor clinical signs or detect cases of respiratory diseases. A technology was considered reliable if high performance was achieved (sensitivity > 90% and specificity or precision > 90%) under field conditions and using a reliable reference test. Risk of bias was assessed, and only technologies tested in studies with low risk of bias were considered reliable. From 23 studies included-swine (13), poultry (6), and bovine (4) -only three complied with our reliability criteria; however, two of these were considered to have a high risk of bias. Thus, only one swine technology fully fit our criteria. Future studies should include field tests and use previously validated reference tests to assess technology's performance. In conclusion, relying completely on PLF for monitoring respiratory diseases is still a challenge, though several technologies are promising, having high performance in field tests.
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.