ArticlePloS one2024
Qualitative behavioral assessment of dogs with acute pain.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute pain sign recognition by dog owners in a home setting.PloS one · 2026Article
- Clinical interpretation of body language and behavioral modifications to recognize pain in domestic mammals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Assessment of acute and chronic pain in canine internal medicine-what is missing in our diagnostic toolbox?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Free Choice Profiling (FCP) methodology allows observers to qualitatively assess animal behavior using their own vocabulary. This study aims to investigate the ability of 3 different observer groups to recognize pain-related emotions in 20 dogs using FCP methodology, and to compare FCP data with the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale-Short Form (GCPS- SF) scores. The observer groups consisted of 10 dog owners, 10 veterinary students and 10 veterinarians. Ten healthy ("healthy") dogs and 10 dogs showing clinical signs of pain ("pain") were filmed, and the resulting 20 footages were shown to observers who were blind to the pain-related nature of the study. All observers described and scored animals' emotional expression using FCP; then, students and veterinarians scored all dogs using GCPS- SF. FCP data were analyzed using Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to determine the correlation among observer groups' FCP scores of the first two FCP dimensions (DIM1 and DIM2), and to compare GCPS-SF scores with FCP scores for the students and veterinarian observer groups. Each observer group reached a significant (p < 0.001) good consensus profile. "Healthy" dogs were mainly described as "quiet" and "lively", while the majority of "pain" dogs were considered "in pain" and "suffering". The correlation among FCP scores was high between owners' DIM1 and students' DIM1 (ρ = -0.86), owners' DIM2 and students' DIM2 (ρ = 0.72) and students' DIM2 and vets' DIM1 (ρ = 0.70). The correlation between GCPS-SF scores and FCP scores was high for students' DIM2 (ρ = 0.77) and for veterinarians' DIM1 (ρ = 0.92). Qualitative methods such as FCP could be used in association with semi-quantitative methods to evaluate the effect of pain on animal emotional expression. Observers' cultural background and personal experience did not substantially affect qualitative behavioral assessment in dogs with acute somatic pain.
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.