Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42704552›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2026

Comparative study of reproductive and preweaning performance in meat guinea pigs located in two housing systems.

Alba Rodríguez-Mengod, Mónica C Brito, María J Domínguez-Gómez, Antonio Calvo, Ramiro Soler, Elisa Tello, Raquel Orellana, Paz Galarza-Alvarado, Carlos Mínguez

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Alba Rodríguez-MengodFacultad de Veterinaria y Ciencias Experimentales, Departamento de Producción Animal y Salud Animal, Universidad Católica de Valencia-SVM, Guillem de Castro, 98, Valencia, 46001, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4262-3279
Mónica C BritoCarrera de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Calle Vieja 12-30 y Elia Liut, Cuenca, Ecuador.
María J Domínguez-GómezFacultad de Veterinaria y Ciencias Experimentales, Departamento de Producción Animal y Salud Animal, Universidad Católica de Valencia-SVM, Guillem de Castro, 98, Valencia, 46001, Spain.
Antonio CalvoFacultad de Veterinaria y Ciencias Experimentales, Departamento de Producción Animal y Salud Animal, Universidad Católica de Valencia-SVM, Guillem de Castro, 98, Valencia, 46001, Spain.
Ramiro SolerFacultad de Veterinaria y Ciencias Experimentales, Departamento de Producción Animal y Salud Animal, Universidad Católica de Valencia-SVM, Guillem de Castro, 98, Valencia, 46001, Spain.
Elisa TelloCarrera de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Calle Vieja 12-30 y Elia Liut, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Raquel OrellanaCarrera de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Calle Vieja 12-30 y Elia Liut, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Paz Galarza-AlvaradoCarrera de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Calle Vieja 12-30 y Elia Liut, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Carlos MínguezFacultad de Veterinaria y Ciencias Experimentales, Departamento de Producción Animal y Salud Animal, Universidad Católica de Valencia-SVM, Guillem de Castro, 98, Valencia, 46001, Spain. cminguez.balaguer@ucv.es.

Funding

Erasmus+ Erasmus+
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guinea pig production contributes to food security and income in Latin America. Traditional floor pens are increasingly being replaced by wire cages. However, the choice between housing systems is often based on subjective preferences rather than performance data. This study is based on a comparison of two housing systems to evaluate the effects of pens versus cages on the reproductive and preweaning performance of guinea pigs. A total of 220 pregnant females were randomly assigned in groups of 10 in different cages and pens, remaining in the same location throughout the study to minimize stress. Differences between housing systems were obtained by Generalized Linear ModelDuring gestation, no significant differences were found in body weight, average daily gain, solid feed intake, forage dry matter intake, feed conversion ratio, litter size, or litter weight. After parturition, the same parameters were measured in both dams and offspring during the preweaning phase, again showing no significant differences between housing systems. Additional welfare indicators such as mortality, skin lesions, leg fractures, and ear injuries were also evaluated by Fisher's exact test. A higher incidence of ear lesions was recorded in cages due to ear tags becoming caught in the bars-a problem not observed under commercial conditions where ear tagging is uncommon. No significant differences were observed for the remaining welfare traits. Overall, both systems proved suitable during gestation and lactation. However, cages offered advantages in ease of cleaning and animal handling, as they eliminated the need for workers to bend to ground level.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryHousing, AnimalReproductionAnimalsAnimal WelfareFemaleGuinea PigsLitter SizePregnancyWeaningGuinea pigHousing systemPensPreweaning performanceReproductive traitsWire cages

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.