ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Pain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CowPainCheck: AI-based facial expression analysis for dairy cow welfare.Journal of animal science and technology · 2026Review
- Preliminary investigation of equine veterinary hospital staff attitudes towards pain assessment in a single centre.The Veterinary record · 2026Article
- Comparing the performance of deep learning video-based models and trained veterinarians in cattle pain assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Pain pathophysiology and pharmacology of cattle: how improved understanding can enhance pain prevention, mitigation, and welfare.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Variation in perceptions of pain and attitudes towards non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use for different lameness scenarios in dairy cattle.The Veterinary recordArticle
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
Abstract
Subjective pain assessment in cattle is contingent upon the observer's experience and attitude. Studies of pain assessment in cattle by veterinarians and farmers using different pain scales have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe and compare the pain scores given by veterinarians and producers for different procedures and conditions using either a NRS or VAS. The literature search was conducted with PubMed (MEDLINE) and Agricola, using defined search terms (e.g., peer-reviewed). A total of 842 articles were identified. After screening of duplicates, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 16 articles were included in this systematic review. Different pain scales were used for the included studies (NRS 0-10 for eight studies, NRS 1-10 for six studies, NRS 1-10 and VAS 0-10 for one study, and VAS 0-1 for one study). Most studies (
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.