Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37570228›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Comparing Visual-Only and Visual-Palpation Post-Mortem Lung Scoring Systems in Slaughtering Pigs.

Sergio Ghidini, Silvio De Luca, Elena Rinaldi, Emanuela Zanardi, Adriana Ianieri, Federica Guadagno, Giovanni Loris Alborali, Diana Meemken, Mauro Conter, Maria Olga Varrà

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Multi-omics integration of FBMC genomics · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sergio GhidiniDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7351-0381
Silvio De LucaDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9242-581X
Elena RinaldiDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Emanuela ZanardiDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2253-3647
Adriana IanieriDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Federica GuadagnoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia-Romagna-Headquarters, Via A. Bianchi, 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy.
Giovanni Loris AlboraliIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia-Romagna-Headquarters, Via A. Bianchi, 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy.
Diana MeemkenDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Freie Universität Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4824-048X
Mauro ConterDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9163-0854
Maria Olga VarràDepartment of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Via del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9068-0254
University of Parma · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna "Bruno Ubertini" · ITFreie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

Ministry of Health Classyfarm
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory diseases continue to pose significant challenges in pig production, and the assessment of lung lesions at the abattoir can provide valuable data for epidemiological investigations and disease surveillance. The evaluation of lung lesions at slaughter is a relatively simple, fast, and straightforward process but variations arising from different abattoirs, observers, and scoring methods can introduce uncertainty; moreover, the presence of multiple scoring systems complicates the comparisons of different studies, and currently, there are limited studies that compare these systems among each other. The objective of this study was to compare validated, simplified, and standardized schemes for assessing surface-related lung lesions in slaughtered pigs and analyze their reliability under field conditions. This study was conducted in a high-throughput abattoir in Italy, where two different scoring methods (Madec and Blaha) were benchmarked using 637 plucks. Statistical analysis revealed a good agreement between the two methods when severe or medium lesions were observed; however, their ability to accurately identify healthy lungs and minor injuries diverged significantly. These findings demonstrate that the Blaha method is more suitable for routine surveillance of swine respiratory diseases, whereas the Madec method can give more detailed and reliable results for the respiratory and welfare status of the animals at the farm level.

Indexed as

lungpigpost-mortem inspectionrespiratory diseasescoring schemesslaughter

Identifiers

PMID37570228
PMCPMC10417645
OpenAlexW4385308356

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.