ArticlePorcine health management2026
Criteria for timely euthanasia of compromised pigs based on expert opinion and longitudinal data collection on farm.
Article in Porcine health management, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely euthanasia is essential for safeguarding pig welfare by preventing unnecessary pain and suffering. However, the definition of what constitutes "timely" euthanasia and which clinical signs allow identification of this time point require empirical validation. This study presents the results of an expert evaluation conducted during a continuing education course. Seventy pig-experienced veterinarians and farmers assessed on-farm recorded clinical signs, as well as photographic and video material from 130 pigs documenting the progression of disease over several days until recovery or euthanasia. For each observation day presented, participants voted for or against euthanasia and provided the reasoning underlying their decision. In total, more than 22,000 individual evaluations were collected. The time point considered appropriate for euthanasia and the associated decision criteria were analyzed and compared with the clinical signs recorded on farm. Qualitative analysis showed that expert consensus on timely euthanasia is primarily based on assessing the chance of treatment success, establishing a specific diagnosis, and evaluating clinical signs through repeated assessments. Furthermore, results indicated that euthanasia decision-making should occur within a time frame encompassing up to three re-visitations.
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.