ArticlePloS one2025
Bovine pain scale: A novel tool for pain assessment in cattle undergoing surgery in the hospital setting.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the performance of deep learning video-based models and trained veterinarians in cattle pain assessment.Scientific reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain negatively impacts animal welfare and it is still neglected in ruminants. This original study aimed to develop and validate the Bovine Pain Scale (BPS) for acute pain assessment in hospitalized cattle undergoing surgery. This was a blinded, randomized, prospective clinical study. Thirty-six animals were included in the study. The Pain Group (n = 25) included patients admitted to a veterinary teaching hospital requiring any type of soft tissue or orthopedic surgery. Videos were recorded before, 2-6 hours after surgery, 1 hour after the administration of analgesia and 24 hours after surgery. The Control Group (n = 11) included healthy animals that were video recorded twice within a 24-48h interval. The BPS was developed using content validity. A total of 118 videos of 6 minutes were randomized and analyzed by four raters who were unaware of groups, time-points and procedures in two phases with a five-week interval. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. Intra and inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient) was very good (0.83-0.94) and ranged from good to very good, respectively (0.65-0.81). The correlation between the BPS and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was strong (rho = 0.77, p < 0.0001) confirming criterion validity. Item-total correlation was acceptable for 3 of 9 items (0.33-0.43) and internal consistency was below the acceptable value (0.6). The scale was responsive to pain but not the administration of analgesia. It was specific for five items, but no items showed sensitivity. The area under the curve of 0.90 demonstrated high discriminatory capacity. According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, the cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 5 of 18. The BPS is reliable and reproducible, showed content and criterion validity, and may be used in veterinary hospitals for assessing post-operative pain in cattle to guide decision-making towards rescue analgesia. Future studies should refine the instrument to guarantee construct validity and sensitivity.
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.