Pain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple item page
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.volume14
dc.contributor.authorTschoner T
dc.contributor.authorMueller KR
dc.contributor.authorZablotski Y
dc.contributor.authorFeist M
dc.contributor.editorMusk GC
dc.coverage.spatialSwitzerland
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-28T22:21:23Z
dc.date.available2024-05-28T22:21:23Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-22
dc.description.abstractSubjective pain assessment in cattle is contingent upon the observer's experience and attitude. Studies of pain assessment in cattle by veterinarians and farmers using different pain scales have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe and compare the pain scores given by veterinarians and producers for different procedures and conditions using either a NRS or VAS. The literature search was conducted with PubMed (MEDLINE) and Agricola, using defined search terms (e.g., peer-reviewed). A total of 842 articles were identified. After screening of duplicates, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 16 articles were included in this systematic review. Different pain scales were used for the included studies (NRS 0-10 for eight studies, NRS 1-10 for six studies, NRS 1-10 and VAS 0-10 for one study, and VAS 0-1 for one study). Most studies (n = 11) originated from the European Union. Mean values for pain scores differed significantly between studies included in the meta-analysis for both NRS 0-10 and 1-10. The findings of this study indicated that comparison of pain scoring used in different studies is difficult due to use of different pain scales and varying nomenclature, and that many variables (such as age and gender) influence pain scoring.
dc.description.confidentialfalse
dc.edition.editionJanuary-2 2024
dc.format.pagination351-
dc.identifier.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38275811
dc.identifier.citationTschoner T, Mueller KR, Zablotski Y, Feist M. (2024). Pain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Animals (Basel). 14. 2. (pp. 351-).
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ani14020351
dc.identifier.eissn2076-2615
dc.identifier.elements-typejournal-article
dc.identifier.issn2076-2615
dc.identifier.number351
dc.identifier.piiani14020351
dc.identifier.urihttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/69678
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherMDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
dc.publisher.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/2/351
dc.relation.isPartOfAnimals (Basel)
dc.rights(c) The author/sen
dc.rights.licenseCC BYen
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectNRS
dc.subjectVAS
dc.subjectacute pain
dc.subjectanalgesia
dc.subjectcalves
dc.subjectdairy cattle
dc.subjectfarmers
dc.subjectpain management
dc.subjectpain scoring
dc.subjectsurvey
dc.subjectveterinarians
dc.titlePain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.elements-id486090
pubs.organisational-groupOther
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 5 of 7
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Published version.pdf
Size:
4.2 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Evidence
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Evidence 1
Size:
97.57 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplemental S6 Conditions in Calves.pdf
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Evidence 2
Size:
170.4 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplemental S1_PRISMA P checklist.pdf
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Evidence 3
Size:
141.58 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplemental S2_Material and Methods.pdf
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Evidence 4
Size:
101.94 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplemental S3 Procedures in Cattle.pdf
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
9.22 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles