ReviewPoultry science2026
Catch damage in broiler chickens: a systematic review of injury assessment methods and their limitations.
Review in Poultry 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catch damage in broiler chickens is widely used as an indicator of preslaughter welfare and carcass quality, yet its assessment methods vary considerably across the scientific literature. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate how catch damage is defined, measured, and attributed in studies involving broiler chickens, with particular attention to methodological consistency and interpretational limitations. A structured literature search identified peer -reviewed studies addressing physical injuries associated with catching and preslaughter handling. Extracted information included injury definitions, assessment stage, scoring systems, sampling strategies, and approaches used to determine injury origin. The review revealed that catch damage is assessed using diverse and often non-comparable frameworks, including on-farm examinations, lairage inspections, postmortem slaughter line scoring, processing record analysis, automated image-based detection, and physiological or biochemical indicators. Catch damage definitions differed in anatomical scope, lesion size thresholds, counting rules, and aggregation level, while many studies relied on postmortem proxy measures such as bruising prevalence, fractures, condemnations, or dead-on-arrival (DOA) rates. These outcomes frequently represent cumulative trauma from multiple preslaughter stages rather than catching specific injury. Limited differentiation between recent and old injuries further constrains stage-specific attribution. Inconsistent reporting of observer training, reliability, and sampling design was also common. Collectively, these methodological differences contribute to measurement bias and restrict cross-study comparability, causal inference, and the development of evidence-based welfare interventions. Catch damage therefore not only represents a biological outcome, but also a measurement construct influenced by assessment context and protocol design. Greater harmonization of injury definitions, injury age classification, and standardized scoring procedures is needed to improve the reliability and practical applicability of catch damage severity as a welfare and quality indicator in broiler production.
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.