ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024
Needle-free intradermal vaccination, an opportunity to improve commercial pig welfare.
Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 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.
- Needle-free intramuscular jet vaccination in finishing pigs: effects on growth, carcass quality, cortisol levels, and CSF-specific neutralizing antibodies.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Enhanced Immunogenicity and Distinct Local Tissue Responses of Porcine Circovirus Type 2 Vaccination in Pigs Using a Needle-Free Jet Injection System.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Feasibility and pharmacokinetic evaluation of a needle-free injector for delivering high concentration antibody formulations.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
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
In-farm livestock production vaccinations are commonly delivered intramuscularly using needles. While there are alternative strategies these have been subject to little attention and limited commercialisation. One such alternative is needle-free vaccines and studies have focused on the immune response few have addressed the welfare implications. This study aims to compare the impact of intradermal needle-free vaccination and intramuscular injection in terms of the welfare of the piglets. A total of 179 piglets were divided into two treatments: intradermal needle-free delivery and intramuscular delivery of a vaccine. Measures of health and welfare included, vocalisations, behavioural observations, papule formation, and weight. Piglets vaccinated via the needle-free intradermal route vocalised less and displayed no significant behavioural differences but showed increased weight compared to piglets vaccinated intramuscularly. The use of a needle-free device to deliver a vaccine through an intradermal route revealed no adverse effects on piglet welfare and supports the use of alternative strategies to vaccinate livestock.
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.