ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Evidence-based guidelines for the post-fire assessment of domestic ruminants: a scoping review.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wildfires globally impact farmers, with risk expected to rise in the next thirty years. Beyond fatalities, wildfires impair the reproductive capabilities of surviving livestock due to smoke exposure. Effective interventions require considering animal welfare, prognosis, and costs. Enhanced clinical assessment is crucial. There is a paucity of data concerning decision-making processes regarding burn injuries in livestock. This study establishes evidence-based guidelines for wildfire-affected ruminants in field settings. The goal is categorizing scientific evidence to create prognostic guidelines. English and Spanish publications from Web of Science, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords related to burn injuries, disaster management, and animal welfare. A research matrix was populated based on inclusion criteria and evidence strength, leading to the development of visual triage guidelines for sheep and cattle. Most evidence comprises case reports (expert opinion) and observational trials. Ovine controlled trials in the 80 s and 90 s significantly advanced burn injury understanding in humans and animals. Key clinical factors determining burn severity include burn extent and depth, anatomic location, and smoke inhalation. Core non-clinical factors implicated in decision-making include feed, water, and shelter, amongst others. Animal categorization by burn severity creates a model for prioritising resources towards animals with the best recovery chances, protecting animal welfare.
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.