Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39231102›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Less experienced observers assess piglet castration-induced acute pain differently than experienced observers: A pilot study.

Gustavo Venâncio da Silva, Magdiel Lopez-Soriano, Monique Danielle Pairis-Garcia, Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Gustavo Venâncio da SilvaLaboratory of Applied Artificial Intelligence on Health, Department of Anesthesiology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.
Magdiel Lopez-SorianoExtension Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0004-5773-7561
Monique Danielle Pairis-GarciaGlobal Production Animal Welfare Laboratory, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Pedro Henrique Esteves TrindadeLaboratory of Applied Artificial Intelligence on Health, Department of Anesthesiology, Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8522-5553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Acute PainPain MeasurementAnimalsCastrationHumansMaleObserver VariationOrchiectomyPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsSwine

Identifiers

PMID39231102
PMCPMC11373819

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.