ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative assessment of two participatory approach methods for selecting pig health indicators: A proof-of-concept on respiratory health.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over recent years, antimicrobial use (AMU) in pig farming has substantially declined across Europe, including France, following regulatory measures and sector-wide initiatives. Maintaining these reductions while preserving pig health and welfare remains a major challenge. Stakeholders have therefore highlighted the need for a structured on-farm health monitoring protocol to support judicious AMU. However, no comprehensive set of pig health indicators has yet been systematically assessed and selected for this purpose. Expert elicitation offers a promising approach to address this gap. This study aimed to develop and compare two participatory methods for mobilizing expert knowledge to identify and characterize relevant pig health indicators while making efficient use of experts' time. Both methods followed the same six-step framework but differed in their implementation. In each method, experts assessed indicators according to four attributes (feasibility, reliability, specificity, and sensitivity) and subsequently discussed the results to reach agreement on a final set of relevant indicators. Porcine respiratory health was used as a proof-of-concept to compare the performance and outputs of the two methods and select the most appropriate one. Both methods enabled experts to reach agreement and generated well-characterized indicators, supported by experts' rationales. Although Method B required greater expert involvement, it produced a more comprehensive set of 52 relevant respiratory health indicators and allowed greater flexibility in how experts allocated their time throughout the process. This participatory approach method provides a practical framework that encourages expert involvement and allows the selection and characterization of relevant pig health indicators. The method will be extended to other pig health systems beyond respiratory health.
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.