ArticlePloS one2024
Less experienced observers assess piglet castration-induced acute pain differently than experienced observers: A pilot study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical validation of the Unesp-Botucatu acute pain scale in sheep undergoing orthopedic surgery.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advancing outcome measure development and analytical approaches: Pain in Animals Workshop 2023.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Behavioral pain scales have been helpful for standardized swine pain assessment. However, it is still unknown if observers' experience influences the scale score. We conducted a pilot study to investigate how three different levels of swine experience influenced how observers scored castration pain in piglets using Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale (UPAPS). We used a database from UPAPS scores from pigs undergoing surgical castration in a previous study. Scores were attributed by six observers with Little to no experience (n = 2), Some experience (n = 2) and Extensive experience (n = 2). Reliability was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient, agreement was investigated by Bland-Altman analysis, predictive capacity was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC), and statistical differences were tested using a regression model. We found that intra-experience levels reliability were satisfactory (Little to no: 0.72, Some: 0.81, Extensive: 0.84), but inter-experience reliability was lower (0.42). Little to no experience observers had poor agreement with other observers, with a bias toward underscoring UPAPS (bias of 0.94 vs. Some, 1.17 vs. Extensive). Predictive capacity was similar between all observers (AUC, Little to no: 71.94%, Some: 76.10%, Extensive: 79.09%, p > 0.05). Regression model confirmed underscoring of Little to no experience observers (mean ± standard error; Little to no: 1.09 ± 0.14; Some: 2.02 ± 0.23; Extensive: 2.25 ± 0.22; p < 0.05). We concluded that minimal experience, as Some experience observers have in the swine industry, is sufficient for them to score UPAPS in a similar way than more experienced observers. The present pilot study supports the enhancement and implementation of UPAPS on farm and laboratory settings by minimally qualified observers, improving swine welfare in the short and long term.
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.