ArticleThe Veterinary record
Effect of 'combing' on intramuscular sedation in pigs in a clinical setting-A randomised trial.
Article in The Veterinary record. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPigs pose distinct challenges to the anaesthetist due to their temperament, the limitations of manual restraint and species-specific anatomical features. Despite the importance of minimising stress during clinical procedures, gentle handling techniques tailored for pigs in a clinical setting have yet to be clearly described or systematically investigated.
methodsSixteen healthy domesticated pigs were prospectively enrolled in a clinical study evaluating 'combing' with a fork as a gentle tactile handling technique in a hospital setting and randomly assigned to either a combing or a control group. Responses were evaluated by a non-blinded, single observer using a seven-domain sedation scale and a dichotomous response scale.
resultsSedation scores were significantly higher for combing than control. The onset of peak sedation time was significantly faster for combing than control (5 vs. 10 minutes). Fewer (12.5%) pigs in the combing group moved away from the injection compared to 75% of control pigs. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the injectable drug protocol used, the lack of blinding with a single observer aware of group allocation, and more than one individual performing the 'combing' protocol.
conclusions'Combing', a gentle handling technique performed prior to intramuscular sedation, resulted in pigs being less reactive to the injection, and faster sedation onset.
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.