ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Exploring definitions of porcine respiratory disease complex in the literature: a scoping review protocol.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) is a major health and economic concern in commercial swine production, contributing to reduced growth performance, increased mortality, elevated treatment costs, and widespread antimicrobial use. Although the term and its acronym are widely used in both research and clinical practice, its definition varies considerably across studies. Definitions may rely solely on clinical signs or incorporate combinations of pathological findings, laboratory diagnostics, performance indicators, and environmental or management factors. This lack of definition consistency challenges disease surveillance, diagnosis, and comparability across studies, potentially hindering the development of effective interventions. Scoping reviews are particularly suited for clarifying how complex terms are defined, mapping research approaches, and identifying gaps in knowledge. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map and describe how PRDC has been defined and operationalized in the scientific literature. Methods and analysis: This review will follow a five-step refined methodological framework guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligible sources will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English language from 1990 onwards. Searches will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Scopus, supplemented by grey literature sources such as OpenGrey, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Additionally, all open-access issues of the Journal of Swine Health and Production will be manually reviewed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Data will be extracted on study characteristics, PRDC definitions, diagnostic criteria, pathogens considered, and production context, including environmental and/or housing/management conditions. Results will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR, using descriptive tables and narrative synthesis to explore variability and consistency in PRDC definitions. Discussion: This protocol outlines a scoping review designed to chart how PRDC has been defined in swine health research. By identifying areas of consensus and divergence, the review will support the development of more consistent case definitions, enhance cross-study comparability, and inform future research and systematic reviews.
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.