SynthesisJournal of animal science2026
A systematic mapping review of cattle welfare research during road transportation (2015-2025).
Synthesis in Journal of animal 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
This systematic mapping review aimed to characterize research trends, aggregate existing evidence, and highlight knowledge gaps in studies evaluating the impact of road transportation-related factors on cattle welfare outcomes. Four databases (Agricola, CAB Abstracts, Medline, Web of Science) were searched, and 125 peer-reviewed studies were included in the final analysis after a rigorous screening process. Data were extracted and synthesized using systematic review software and visualized using evidence gap maps. The review revealed studies were conducted across all regions of the globe, although Africa and Oceania had minimal representation (n = 8, 6.4% and n = 6, 4.8%, respectively). Transport duration or distance was the most studied transportation factor across the literature, included in 46.4% (n = 58) of the studies. Other factors commonly associated with transport stress, such as the external environment during transportation and the trailer stocking density, were minimally represented in the data (n = 15, 12.0% and n = 16, 12.8%, respectively). Studies included a wide range of cattle types, including a variety of stages of production (calf vs adult), sex classes (steer vs bull vs cow), and breed types (dairy vs beef). Research included multiple types of outcomes with physiological parameters measured in over half of the studies (n = 70, 56.0%). The characterization of transportation research across regions highlights the global differences in cattle production systems, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks. This systematic map provides a valuable resource for researchers and stakeholders, identifying key areas for future research, and contributing to efforts to identify best management practices for transportation to improve cattle welfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.