Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40431568›Full record

ReviewVeterinary sciences2025

Assessing Intestinal Health in Pigs: Recognizing Unaddressed Areas and Prospective Research Avenues.

Marina Patricia Walter, Gabriela Miotto Galli, Alicia Zem Fraga, Aires Santos Silva, Júlio César Vieira Furtado, Pedro João Viera Ascari, Ines Andretta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary sciences, 2025. 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. Feeding of Undocked Pigs: Effects of Feed Components and Feed Composition.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Marina Patricia WalterDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Gabriela Miotto GalliDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6734-8659
Alicia Zem FragaDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica 23890-000, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3056-7441
Aires Santos SilvaDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Júlio César Vieira FurtadoDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Pedro João Viera AscariDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Ines AndrettaDepartment of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6205-4229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gut health is crucial for pigs because it affects nutrient absorption, immune function, and growth performance. However, its definition remains unclear, particularly regarding measurable responses in scientific studies. This review critically analyzed studies assessing intestinal health in pigs during the nursery, growing, and finishing phases, focusing on the invasiveness of the applied techniques. Papers published between 2005 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct, resulting in 322 articles. Publications grew at an annual rate of 23%, with 84% of studies conducted in the nursery phase. In the database, 87% of intestinal health assessments were combined with growth performance measures. Semi-invasive methods, such as blood collection, were used in 65% of the studies. Non-invasive measures, such as fecal samples, were analyzed in 39% of the studies, whereas urine (7%) and saliva (0.6%) were used in only a small fraction of the studies. Invasive methods, including intestinal tissue collection, were employed in 89% of studies. Among these, 24% did not specify the euthanasia method or number of pigs euthanized. No significant association was found between invasive and non-invasive methods, limiting the ability to establish clear relationships. Future studies should integrate multiple levels of invasiveness to improve the understanding and reduce reliance on invasive techniques.

Indexed as

finishingintestinal integrityinvasive methodsnon-invasive methodsnurserysemi-invasive methodsswine

Identifiers

PMID40431568
PMCPMC12115753

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.