Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39856152›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Healing progression of tail docking and ear tag wounds in lambs.

Jocelyn M Woods, Sarah J J Adcock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Jocelyn M WoodsDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Sarah J J AdcockDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. sarah.adcock@wisc.edu.

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 1025418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tail docking and ear tagging are common husbandry practices in lambs, but little is known about subsequent wound healing or how it may be affected by performing both procedures concurrently. Our objectives were to: (1) describe wound healing following tail docking and ear tagging, and (2) compare healing of ear wounds in docked and undocked lambs. Within 28 female Polypay twin pairs, one lamb was docked using a rubber ring between 1 and 2 days of age and the other lamb's tail was left intact. Tags were attached to both ears of all lambs. We photographed tail and ear wounds twice weekly until weaning (mean ± SD; 64 ± 5 days of age). Tail wounds took 43 ± 9 days to heal (range: 30-60 days). Pus, a sign of infection, was present at least once in 89% of tail wounds and was associated with delayed healing. Only 49% of ear wounds had healed by weaning, and tail docking did not predict the probability of healing. Pus and sanguineous exudate (i.e., bleeding) were present at least once in 21% and 96% of ear wounds, respectively. Pus was not associated with the probability of ear wound healing, but ears with more frequent bleeding were less likely to have healed by weaning. The duration of healing and likelihood of infection following both procedures raise welfare concerns and suggest refinements or alternatives are warranted.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryEarTailWound HealingAnimalsFemaleSheepAnimal welfareInfectionPainful proceduresSheepWound healing

Identifiers

PMID39856152
PMCPMC11760940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.