Author
Listed:
- Gustavo Venâncio da Silva
- Magdiel Lopez-Soriano
- Monique Danielle Pairis-Garcia
- Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade
Abstract
Behavioral pain scales have been helpful for standardized swine pain assessment. However, it is still unknown if observers’ experience influences the scale score. We conducted a pilot study to investigate how three different levels of swine experience influenced how observers scored castration pain in piglets using Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale (UPAPS). We used a database from UPAPS scores from pigs undergoing surgical castration in a previous study. Scores were attributed by six observers with Little to no experience (n = 2), Some experience (n = 2) and Extensive experience (n = 2). Reliability was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient, agreement was investigated by Bland-Altman analysis, predictive capacity was estimated using the area under the curve (AUC), and statistical differences were tested using a regression model. We found that intra-experience levels reliability were satisfactory (Little to no: 0.72, Some: 0.81, Extensive: 0.84), but inter-experience reliability was lower (0.42). Little to no experience observers had poor agreement with other observers, with a bias toward underscoring UPAPS (bias of 0.94 vs. Some, 1.17 vs. Extensive). Predictive capacity was similar between all observers (AUC, Little to no: 71.94%, Some: 76.10%, Extensive: 79.09%, p > 0.05). Regression model confirmed underscoring of Little to no experience observers (mean ± standard error; Little to no: 1.09 ± 0.14; Some: 2.02 ± 0.23; Extensive: 2.25 ± 0.22; p
Suggested Citation
Gustavo Venâncio da Silva & Magdiel Lopez-Soriano & Monique Danielle Pairis-Garcia & Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade, 2024.
"Less experienced observers assess piglet castration-induced acute pain differently than experienced observers: A pilot study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0309684
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309684
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.