Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Sep 28;18(9):e0292224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292224

An ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats based on expert consensus

Sabrine Marangoni 1, Julia Beatty 2, Paulo V Steagall 1,2,*
Editor: Harvie P Portugaliza3
PMCID: PMC10538801  PMID: 37768967

Abstract

An improved understanding of behaviors reflecting acute pain in cats is a priority for feline welfare. The aim of this study was to create and validate a comprehensive ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats that can discriminate painful versus non-painful individuals. An inventory of behaviors (ethogram) with their respective descriptors was created based on a literature review of PubMed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts databases. The ethogram was divided into ten behavior categories that could be evaluated by duration and/or frequency: position in the cage, exploratory behaviors, activity, posture and body position, affective-emotional states, vocalization, playing (with an object), feeding, post-feeding and facial expressions/features. Thirty-six behaviors were analyzed independently by four veterinarians with postgraduate qualifications in feline medicine and/or behavior as (1) not relevant, (2) somewhat relevant, (3) quite relevant or (4) highly relevant and used for content (I-CVI) and face validity. Items with I-CVI scores > 0.67 were included. Twenty-four behaviors were included in the final ethogram. Thirteen items presented full agreement (i.e., I-CVI = 1): positioned in the back of the cage, no attention to surroundings, feigned sleep, grooming, attention to wound, crouched/hunched, abnormal gait, depressed, difficulty grasping food, head shaking, eye squinting, blepharospasm and lowered head position. Seven descriptors were reworded according to expert suggestions. The final ethogram provides a detailed description of acute pain behaviors in cats after content and face validity and can be applied to the characterization of different acute painful conditions in hospitalized cats.

Introduction

Pain is considered a multi-dimensional and complex sensory and affective-emotional response, impacting patient health and welfare [1,2]. Historically, pain management in cats has been neglected, underestimated and overlooked [1,2], partly because recognition of pain requires understanding the cat’s unique behavior, and their species-specific responses to the physical and social environment [3]. The solitary nature of cats and their tendency to mask signs of pain as an adaptive strategy in the hospital setting makes acute pain assessment challenging [3]. In addition, behavioral signs of pain may be unique to the individual animal. Cats with similar pain conditions may experience different degrees of pain, likely influenced by their genetics, response to analgesics and stressors experienced earlier in life [2,4]. The experience of pain can also be amplified by confounding factors such as comorbidities, fear, anxiety, stress, and/or frustration in the clinical setting. Therefore, implementing routine and individualized pain assessment is vital to provide adequate care while meeting the emotional and environmental needs of the cat [4,5]. Hence, comprehensive observation of posture, activity, attitude and facial expression, and interaction with the environment/observer are required for pain assessment.

There has been a lot of interest in feline acute pain assessment with the publication of specific guidelines [2,4,6], validated multidimensional composite pain scales [79], and the Feline Grimace Scale© (FGS) [10]. Additionally, multi-lingual validation of pain scoring systems [11] has improved objectivity while reducing bias during pain assessment. Other than these tools, detailed descriptors of acute pain behaviors have not been published, since behavioral studies using ethograms are rarely reported [12,13]. An ethogram is a catalog that enables an accurate description of species-specific behaviors [14]. Standardization of objective behavior terminology is important to ensure that readers are familiar with commonly used descriptors of pain behaviors. Furthermore, standardization mitigates inter-observer subjectivity and interpretation of clinical manifestations of pain giving confidence to the veterinary care team that observed behaviors are consistent and reliable [14]. Finally, characterization of pain requires an understanding of the duration and frequency of specific behaviors that differentiate painful from non-painful individuals suffering from specific conditions (e.g. medical, surgical, trauma), and involving different anatomic locations (abdominal, thoracic, orthopedic, dental pain, etc.). For example, little is known about dermatologic, aural, visceral and ocular pain in cats, and clinical signs have been mostly described anecdotally or in review articles and case reports [1518]. Therefore, an ethogram with a detailed description of general feline acute pain behaviors could help with the characterization of these poorly-understood painful conditions.

The aim of this study was to create and validate a comprehensive ethogram of general acute pain behaviors in cage-hospitalized cats. This was a descriptive study without a set working hypothesis.

Materials and methods

Databases and search terms

Three databases (PubMed, CAB abstracts, Web of Science) were searched between January 2nd to 20th 2023. No restriction was placed on publication date or language. The search terms were defined using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), a controlled vocabulary thesaurus used for indexing articles for PubMed. The following descriptors were included: (“acute pain”) AND (behavi* OR “pain scoring system” OR “pain indicator” OR “pain assessment” OR ethogram) AND (cats OR feline).

Eligibility criteria

Original peer-reviewed studies reporting the development and/or validation of pain scoring instruments for the assessment of acute pain, as well as manuscripts reporting the assessment of one or more measurement properties of these instruments were included. Studies involving pain scales during validation of another instrument, the frequency and duration of acute pain behaviors, or reporting lists of pain-related behaviors (i.e., expert consensus using Delphi methodology, narrative reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines) were also included.

Studies that reported the use of pain scales as an outcome measurement instrument (e.g., in randomized controlled trials comparing two different treatments), nociceptive testing, tools for chronic pain assessment, including objective measures (i.e., activity monitoring) or surveys about knowledge, perceptions and attitudes about pain assessment were excluded.

Literature search

Study titles and their abstracts were screened for eligibility by one investigator (SM). Full-text articles were selected, references were exported to Endnote (version 20.0; ClarivateTM, Philadelphia) and duplicates were removed. Cross-reference of eligible articles and/or reviews were used to expand the search. A total of 53 articles were included (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flowchart describing the literature review performed for drafting of an ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats.

Fig 1

Ethogram

An inventory of behaviors was initially developed by two individuals (SM, PVS). Afterwards, the draft was reviewed by an experienced Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons recognized Specialist in Feline Medicine to increase readability and comprehensiveness of each item (JB). Criteria for inclusion of a behavior in the ethogram were: (1) behaviors that may discriminate painful vs non-painful caged-individuals in the hospital setting to be evaluated in real-time or video assessment including normal behaviors, (2) behaviors that have been described in pain scoring tools, and (3) behaviors that could capture a range of acute pain behaviors in different sources of pain (e.g., trauma, orthopedic, abdominal, dental, ocular, aural pain). The ethogram was divided in categories. Each item within a category included the name of the behavior and a detailed descriptor of the behavior with relevant references.

Content and face validity

A panel of four international experienced veterinarians were invited to contribute to this study. Fields of expertise included: a feline specialist board-certified with the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners (ABVP), a board-certified behaviorist from the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB), an individual with experience in pain management and animal welfare, and advanced certificate in feline behavior by the International Society of Feline Medicine (Ph.D.; PgDip; ISFMAdvCertFB) and one feline specialist qualified by the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists and advanced certificate in feline behavior (ANZCVS; Ph.D.; PgDip; ISFMAdvCertFB). These individuals were selected based on leadership in feline, behavior and pain medicine. The panel was required to independently analyze each behavioral item of the ethogram as (1) not relevant, (2) somewhat relevant (3) quite relevant or (4) highly relevant for content (I-CVI, item-content validity index) and face validity. From the formula CVI=neN2N/2 [11], where ne is the number of evaluators who consider the item relevant (scores 3 and 4) and N is the total number of evaluators, items with I-CVI scores > 0.67 [19] were included in the final ethogram. Face validity was defined as whether the descriptors were an adequate reflection of the behavior. The panel evaluated each descriptor for clarity and comprehension and provided feedback on definitions and wording between February 20th and March 5th 2023 (S1 Table). Subsequently, the authors evaluated the feedback from the panel, and modifications were made accordingly using consensus and I-CVI.

Results

The ethogram (36 items) submitted for content and face validity with I-CVI scores is shown in Table 1. Following expert review and feedback, 24 behaviors were included in the final ethogram (Table 2).

Table 1. An ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats submitted for content and face validity with I-CVI scores.

Categories Behavior Descriptors I-CVI
Position in the cage Back (D) Cat is positioned in the back of the cage [9,12] 1
Front (D) Cat is positioned in the front of the cage [9,12] 0.5
Exploratory behavior Withdrawing (F) (D) Move away from a stimulus or an observer [14,20] 0.75
Investigating (D) Directed, purposeful movement of the head and/or whole body towards objects or surfaces that are sniffed or contacted with a front paw [14] 0.5
No attention to the surroundings (D) Absence of investigatory behaviors [9,13] 1
Activity Restlessness (D) Unwilling or unable to stay still or to be quiet or calm [7,9,20,21] 0.75
Feigned sleep (F) (D) Not related to sleeping. Eyes are partially closed, the ears are pulled apart, and the muzzle is retracted backwards [4,22] 1
Grooming (D) Gentle licking, nibbling, biting or chewing of a body part. Includes licking of the medial thoracic limb and wiping it over the body and/or head [14,20] 1
Stretching (F) Straighten or extension of body parts making their longer or wider [14] 0.75
Scratching (F) Using the extended claws of a back leg to gently scrape the body [14] 0.25
Tail twitch (F) A rapid flick of the tail [4,7,14,20] 0.25
Attention to the wound (F) Licking or pawing a wound or painful area excessively, or attempting to do so, often moving the head towards the painful area [79] 1
Posture & Body Position Sitting (D) Maintaining the same position with the thoracic limbs extended and the pelvic limbs flexed with the tarsi in contact with the ground [14] 0.5
Crouched/Hunched up (D) Leaning forward with the shoulders raised, head down and/or limbs bent [4,8,2022] 1
Lying dorsoventrally with pelvic limbs extended/contracted (F) (D) Lying in dorsoventral recumbency and contracting or extending its pelvic limbs [4,7,9] 0.75
Abnormal gait (F) Abnormal gait, but still able to weight bear to some degree on all four limbs [4,20] 1
Non-weight bearing (F) Failing to bear weight on a limb [4,20] 0.75
Affective-emotional states Depressed (D) Unresponsive, immobile [8,12] 1
Vocalization * Repelling (F) Any behavior related to a protective response, including biting, attacking, growling, piloerection and tail twitching [1,8] 0.75
Growling (F) A low-pitched, throaty, rumbling noise produced while the mouth is closed [8,14] 0.75
Hissing (F) A drawn-out, hissing sound produced by rapid expulsion of air from the cats’ mouth, usually during exhalation [8,14] 0.75
Playing (with an object) a Pawing (D) Directed contact with the object using the forepaw(s) [14] 0.75
Not pawing but interest to play/towards the object (D) Tracking the object with the eye and/or head movement without pawing [13] 0.25
Not pawing/no interest towards the object (D) No reaction to or moves away from the object [13] 0.25
Feeding b Eating (D) Approaches food and prehends, chews and swallows normally [14] 0.25
Difficulty grasping or holding food (F) Approaches food but unable to properly prehend (grasp or hold food) [13] 1
Head shaking during feeding (F) Shakes the head in a side to side movement during eating and/or in the intervals between chewing food with the teeth and swallowing [13] 1
Not eating but interest in food (D) Shows an interest by sniffing or licking the food but does not progress the action of eating [9,13] 0.5
Not eating/no interest in food (D) No interest to food [9,13] 0.75
Post-feeding b Lip licking (F) Touches the lips and/or nose with tongue [13,14] 0.5
Grooming (D) Gentle licking, scratching, nibbling, biting or chewing the fur of a body part. May also include the licking of a front paw and wiping it over the body and/or head [14] 0.75
Facial expressions or features Head shaking (not related to eating) (F) Episodic shaking of the head in a side to side movement [13] 0.5
Eye squinting (F) Continuous orbital tightening [7,9,10,21] 1
Blepharospasm (F) Frequent abnormal, uncontrollable contraction/twitching of the eyelid muscle [20] 1
Lip licking (not related to eating) (F) Touches the lips and/or nose with tongue [13] 0.25
Lowered head position (D) Head held below the shoulder line or angled down with the chin moving towards the chest [10,20] 1

(I-CVI) item content index validity; (D) Duration of behavior; (F) Frequency of behavior.

*when audio is available.

awhen playing with the cat.

bwhen food is offered.

Table 2. Ethogram of acute pain behavior in cats following expert consensus.

Categories Behavior Descriptors
Position in the cage Back (D) Positioned in the back of the cage [9,12]
Exploratory behavior No attention to the surroundings (D) Absence of investigatory behaviors [9,12]
Activity Restlessness (D) Unwilling or unable to stay still or to be quiet or calm [7,9,20,24]
Withdrawing/Hiding (F) (D) Moving away from a stimulus or an observer [14,20]
Feigned sleep (F) (D) Not related to sleeping. Eyes are partially closed, the ears are pulled apart, and the muzzle is retracted backwards [4,22]
Grooming (D) Gentle licking, nibbling, biting or chewing of a body part. Includes licking of the medial thoracic limb and wiping it over the body and/or head [14,20]
Stretching (F) Straightening or extending body parts [14]
Attention to the wound (F) Licking or pawing a wound or painful area repeatedly, or attempting to do so, often moving the head towards the painful area [79]
Posture & Body position Crouched/Hunched up (D) Leaning forward with both pelvic and thoracic limbs flexed and head down [4,8,2022]
Lying dorsoventrally with pelvic limbs extended/contracted (F) (D) Lying in dorsoventral recumbency and contracting or extending its pelvic limbs [4,7,9]
Abnormal gait (F) Abnormal gait, but still able to bear weight to some degree on all four limbs [4,20]
Non-weight bearing (F) Failing to bear weight on a limb [4,20]
Affective-emotional states Depressed (D) Unresponsive, immobile [8,12]
Repelling (F) Any behavior related to a protective response, including biting, attacking, growling, piloerection and tail twitching [1,8]
Vocalization * Growling (F) A low-pitched, throaty, rumbling noise produced while the mouth is closed [8,14]
Hissing (F) A drawn-out, hissing sound produced by rapid expulsion of air from the cats’ mouth, usually during exhalation [8,14]
Playing (with an object) a Pawing (F) Directed contact with the object using the forepaw(s) [14]
Feeding b Difficulty grasping or holding food (F) Approaches food but unable to properly prehend (grasp or hold food) [13]
Head shaking during feeding (F) Shakes the head in a side to side movement during eating and/or in the intervals between chewing food with the teeth and swallowing [13]
Not eating/no interest in food (D) No interest to food [9,13]
Post-feeding b Grooming (D) Gentle licking, scratching, nibbling, biting or chewing the fur of a body part [14]
Facial expression or features Eye squinting (F) Continuous orbital tightening [7,9,10,21]
Blepharospasm (F) Frequent contraction/twitching of the eyelid muscle [20]
Lowered head position (D) Head held below the shoulder line or angled down with the chin moving towards the chest [10,20]

(D) Duration of behavior; (F) Frequency of behavior.

*when audio is available.

awhen playing with the cat.

bwhen food is offered.

Twelve behaviors were removed during content validity: positioned in the front of the cage; investigating, scratching, tail twitch, sitting, not pawing but interest/towards the object, not pawing/no interest towards the object, eating, not eating but interest in food, lip licking (post-feeding), head shaking (not related to eating), lip licking (not related to eating). Most behaviors were removed without concern since the antagonistic behavior was present in the ethogram and allowed the differentiation of painful from pain-free cats. A total of thirteen items presented full agreement (i.e., I-CVI = 1): positioned in the back of the cage, no attention to surroundings (exploratory behavior), feigned sleep, grooming and attention to wound (activity), crouched/hunched and abnormal gait (posture & body position), depressed (affective-emotional states), difficulty grasping food, head shaking (feeding), eye squinting, blepharospasm and lowered head position (facial expression or features).

Seven descriptors were reworded according to expert suggestions. The behavior ‘withdrawing’ was moved from ‘exploratory behavior’ to the ‘activity’ category, and reworded as ‘withdrawing/hiding’ as comments reflected any activity of avoidance including hiding under a blanket or towel, or behind a box, etc. ‘Attention to the wound’ was modified by replacing the word ‘excessively’ with ‘repeatedly’ related to ‘licking, pawing, or attempting to lick or paw, a painful area’. The descriptor for ‘crouched/hunched up’ position included in ‘posture & body position’ category was modified. Therefore, ‘leaning forward with the shoulders raised, head down and/or limbs bent’ was changed to ‘leaning forward with both pelvic and thoracic limbs flexed and head down’.

The addition of more description of facial expressions or features was suggested by one reviewer for ‘feigned sleep’. However, the consensus among the three authors was to maintain a simple description as ‘not related to sleeping; eyes are partially closed, the ears are pulled apart, and the muzzle is retracted backwards’.

For the category ‘activity’, there was a concern about the subjectivity of ‘restlessness’ by one reviewer. This was originally described as ‘unwillingness to stay still or to be quiet or calm’. It was suspected that the words ‘quiet and calm’ could have different interpretations. However, as in this case, both words are opposite to ‘restlessness’; hence, it was decided to maintain the original descriptor, as it should be easy to identify even if the interpretation of calm or quiet may vary.

Discussion

This study provides an ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats that has been validated using content and face validity. This ethogram, comprising 24 behaviors divided into 10 categories, represents a tool that can be utilized in subsequent studies to characterize the duration and frequency of behaviors related to manifestations of pain in conditions that are under-studied in cats. The detailed description of behaviors contained in the ethogram supports objective interpretation of common signs of acute pain in cats, particularly for those less familiar with this species. The ethogram may also complement established pain scoring instruments where some behaviors are listed, but not described. Categories in the ethogram are discussed separately below.

Position in the cage

Being positioned in the ‘back’ of the cage is commonly reported in painful cats according to guidelines [4], reviews [2123] and composite pain scoring tools [7,9]. This behavior was observed during a multidisciplinary study for the characterization of oral pain-related behaviors in cats. Cats that have undergone multiple dental extractions due to severe periodontal disease and/or gingivostomatitis spent more time in the back of the cage than cats with minimal periodontal disease [13]. However, this behavior may not be specific to pain if considered in isolation or during single observation [22,24]. Non-socialized, fearful or shy cats, whether in pain or not, may stay at the back of the cage [1,3]. However, a confident, friendly, and commonly attentive cat that otherwise would seek attention in the front of the cage, may demonstrate changes in behavioral patterns after surgery, trauma or due to a painful medical condition. These cats commonly spend more time in the back of the cage when in pain [4,22].

Exploratory behavior

Exploratory behaviors, innate for the felidae family, are described elsewhere [14]. ‘No attention to surroundings’ is similarly described as ‘inattentive, unresponsive’ within the UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional pain assessment scale (UFEPS) [9] (psychomotor change—comfort) and in its short-version (UFEPS-SF) [7]. The Glasgow Composite Feline Pain Scale (CPMS-F) [12] and its revised version (rCMPS-F) [8] included the item ‘unresponsive’. A definition of the behavior as ‘absence of investigatory behaviors’ helps to reduce subjectivity as the lack of exploring, sniffing, engaging with surroundings or reward-seeking behaviors may equally characterize a painful or an inhibited cat [13]. Unquestionably, avoidance or inhibition of normal behaviors (i.e., inappetence, inactivity, etc.), as protective responses to distress can also be equivocally interpreted as ‘no attention to surroundings’. Although the cat may appear unresponsive to the environment and/or observer (i.e., freezing during hospitalization), the motivation may be fear-anxiety-stress, frustration and/or pain or, a mixture of these negative emotions [1,3]. Indeed, cats with severe oral pain were less active (i.e., reduced exploratory behaviors) than cats with minimal periodontal disease after a dental procedure [13].

Activity

‘Feigned sleep’ was described in a review article [22] and recently in the ISFM Consensus Guidelines on acute pain management in cats [4]. Frequently, there is a misinterpretation that a cat is asleep after surgery when there is eye squinting, whiskers changes and the head is lower than the body. Indeed, these changes in facial features have been described in painful cats using the FGS [10] and the rCMPS-F [8]. ‘Feigned sleep’ must be discriminated from normal restful sleep and veterinary health professionals should be educated on these subtle behaviors. During normal sleep, body posture is commonly relaxed and curled up [4,21,24]; cats have been described to adopt a “bagel” or “croissant” position [4]. In a ‘feigned sleep’ state, cats can appear to be asleep and immobile. However, relaxation behaviors are not observed and cats may be easily disturbed. A shy or fearful cat may use ‘feigned sleep’ behavior as a passive coping mechanism in stressful environments. The presence of other pain behaviors, such as a crouched/hunched up position, may accompany changes in facial expressions of a cat in ‘feigned sleep’, and pain assessment should take into consideration body posture, for example [4,20].

Cats often perform a deep forward stretch when stroked from head to tail, or immediately after waking up [21,22]. However, in painful conditions, ‘stretching’ behavior is often absent or altered [21,22]. Another intrinsic species-specific behavior and an important indicator of health status is ‘grooming’. Postoperative pain is known to alter grooming behavior [13,2325]. Acute pain or itch are often correlated with localized overgrooming as they have similar neural pathways [26] and excessive grooming could be an attempt to provide relief to pain or itch. Licking, grooming or biting the skin are common indicators of postoperative pain in cats [9,23,25,2729], dogs [30], horses [31], cattle [32], pigs [33] and rabbits [34]. ‘Attention to the wound’ was previously reported in the CMPS-F (Question 3), UFEPS (pain expression–miscellaneous behaviors) and UFEPS-SF (Item 2). This behavior was described during video assessment in cats after ovariohysterectomy [28]. Cats were more active and spent less time giving attention to the wound after the administration of butorphanol. However, cats tended to increase their attention to the wound as the effects of butorphanol subsided, potentially corroborating that this behavior is pain-related and relieved by the administration of opioid analgesics. In that study, video observations also demonstrated that painful cats frequently change body positions. Moving from a sitting position, cats would lean forward with flexed thoracic limbs, trunk lowered and head down. At the same time, pelvic limbs would be flexed for a moment, with the cat laying into a crouched position every five to ten minutes [28]. The authors described this behavior as ‘restlessness’. This behavior is often present in painful conditions and was described in the UFEPS (psychomotor change–comfort) [9], CMPS-F—Question 2 [12] and the UFEPS-SF–Item 1 [7].

Posture & body position

Abnormal postures have been reported after abdominal procedures including crouching/hunching, often with the head down [8,9,12,28]. ‘Crouched/hunched up’ should be considered during pain assessment. However, in the CMPS-F, tensed/crouching position is allocated at Question 2 (score 3) and rigid/hunched position (score 4). Thus, ‘crouched/hunched up’ may not be considered interchangeably in terms of pain scoring, although it is not clear on what basis the authors of CMPS-F assigned more weight for hunched than crouching, and the difference between these two behaviors remains unclear. A preliminary study described ‘crouching’ position as ‘sternal recumbency, weight bearing on forelimbs’ and first reported the body position ‘tucked-up appearance’ and ‘half-tucked-up appearance’ to refer to a cat with a ‘tensed or partially tensed abdomen in sternal recumbency’ [35]. In that study, painful cats spent more time crouching and frequently assumed a ‘half-tucked-up appearance’. An expert consensus considered ‘hunched up’ posture to be relevant and frequent in the presence of pain in cats whereas ‘crouching’ was not [20]. This demonstrates the importance of terminology standardization and the rationale for the development of this ethogram. Gait abnormalities, such as ‘abnormal gait’ and ‘non-weight bearing’ are commonly described in dogs [2] and horses [36] with musculoskeletal acute painful disorders. In cats, these behaviors can be subtle, intermittent, and highly variable, depending on the source and intensity of pain, particularly because non-weight bearing is a form of abnormal gait.

Adopting dorsolateral recumbency while extending and contracting the pelvic limbs are suggestive of abdominal pain. ‘Lying dorsoventrally with pelvic limbic extended/contracted’ was described in the UFEPS (psychomotor change—posture) [9], UFEPS-SF (Items 1 and 2) [7] and in the ISFM guidelines on the management of acute pain in cats [4]. However, in the authors’ experience, this behavior has not been consistently acknowledged in the literature. Consequently, there is a high probability of this behavior being overlooked or under-recognized in the hospital setting, reinforcing the need of appropriate training to perform pain assessment.

Affective-emotional states

Body movement and postures, and facial expressions are commonly used by cats for emotional and visual communication [1,37]. Specific neurophysiological responses for each type of emotion may be triggered differently within the individual under different contexts, impacting behavioral pain assessment [37]. Nevertheless, individual cats likely experience and express pain in different ways based on previous stressors and affective-emotional states. Protective responses may result in avoidance and/or ‘repelling behaviors’. The latter refers to protective responses including swatting, swiping, striking, scratching, biting, piloerection, tail twitching and/or antagonistic vocalizations to increase distance from the observer or stop any interaction. Unfamiliar and stressful events such as transportation to the hospital setting potentially activate and amplify protective responses in the presence of pain [1,38]. Demeanor can have a significant effect on the overall scores of rCMPS-F and the psychomotor but not pain expression section of the UFEPS [39]. A key to mitigate the activation of fear, anxiety or stress, in which mixed emotions can overlap and be misinterpreted, is to provide the cats’ environmental demands [5] and reinforce gentle and positive interactions [1]. The latter is important for adequate pain assessment.

Vocalization

Domestic cats can produce different types of vocalization for inter- or intra-species communication depending on context [3,40,41]. In the case of expressing pain, they can growl, howl, moan, snarl, spit, yowl or hiss [20]. However, these vocalizations can be altered by the cats’ genetics and modulated by the environment and previous experiences [14,41]. During creation of the ethogram, the question was raised whether ‘howling’ and ‘yowling’ should be included. However, it was decided that ‘growling’ and ‘hissing’ adequately differentiate painful from non-painful cats, as consistently described in previous reports and pain scoring tools [79,20]. Additionally, descriptions of vocalization patterns can be subjective since perception is multifactorial and individually variable, especially for veterinary health professionals whose English is not their first language.

Playing (with an object)

‘Pawing’ at objects or other animals may be part of playing behavior in cats. Object play varies between individuals and has a crucial role in motor and cognitive training in early stages of life and socialization [42]. Decreased playfulness can be a behavioral indicator of pain, and has been described in cats with oral pain [13]. Cats in severe pain had decreased duration of ‘pawing the ribbon’ than non-painful cats [13]. Distress in the hospital setting can alter playing motivation. Some cats with outgoing, confident personalities can be overly playful, while shy or fearful individuals may hesitate to play. Individual cats might prefer different types of toys/ribbons, which is subjective as an indicator of pain. Standardizing playing sessions in the hospital setting before and after a painful insult might reduce subjectivity by establishing a baseline. The importance of play behavior is still unclear for pain and welfare assessment and may require further study [42].

Feeding & post-feeding

Appetite has been previously used in pain assessment in cats [43] and is included in the physiological variables of the UFEPS [9]. Changes in feeding behavior were considered reliable for assessing pain by expert consensus [20], although it requires knowledge of prior feeding patterns. ‘Not eating/no interest to food’ was considered highly relevant to pain-related behavior in our ethogram and reduced food intake (e.g., after dental surgical procedures) could be of clinical relevance as pain indicator in cats [13,44]. A recent study compared food intake in kittens (i.e., 10 weeks to 6 months of age) undergoing ovariohysterectomy using an opioid-free anesthetic protocol with or without multimodal analgesia. Food intake (%) was significantly higher in non-painful than painful cats when it was evaluated for 2 minutes (15.2 vs 4.2, respectively) and 60 minutes (58.9 vs 29.9, respectively) postoperatively [44]. ‘Difficulty grasping or holding food’ was observed more frequently in painful when compared to non-painful cats undergoing multiple dental extractions in a multidisciplinary study [13]. In cats, normal behaviors post-feeding include grooming and sleeping [14]. Consequently, the absence of ‘grooming’ behavior post-feeding is often present in painful conditions.

Facial expressions or features

Facial expressions of pain have been extensively studied and validated in several species [45]. For example, the Feline Grimace Scale© includes five action units (ear position, orbital tightening, muzzle tension, whisker position, and head position), which are crucial for acute pain assessment. This scale has been robustly validated and is suitable for use by veterinary professionals at different levels of training [46], as well as by caregivers [47]. The behavior ‘lowered head posture’ was cited in the aforementioned expert consensus [20], whereas ‘lowered head position’ was described in the FGS [10]. Observation of head position should be included in acute pain assessment.

‘Blepharospasm’ can be considered an involuntary protective response from a potential injury. It can be present in several ocular conditions, but this behavior is not fully understood or known as an indicator of pain [20]. Painful conditions such as corneal ulcers can trigger both ‘blepharospasm’ and ‘eye squinting’, which can be motivated by pain or as an involuntary mechanism to avoid bright light and further injury. A study evaluating the efficacy of topical nalbuphine and oral tramadol for corneal pain used blepharospasm as an important indicator for rescue analgesia [48]. On the other hand, ocular manifestations by viral pathogens are commonly seen in cats, such as feline herpesvirus type 1 (FHV-1) and feline calicivirus (FCV), which can cause conjunctivitis, followed by keratitis, with or without ulceration, especially in cats chronically infected with FHV-1 [49]. Currently, there is a lack of clinical studies reporting if cats with infectious diseases such as FVH-1 or Chlamydia frequently present pain-induced blepharospasm.

This study has some limitations. The ethogram requires further validation to confirm that the behaviors described can discriminate painful vs non-painful cats of different life-stages and experiencing different painful conditions. As with many other behaviors, some might be present in conditions that have not been studied. Therefore, some terms that have been removed from the ethogram could still have some clinical relevance. Notably, the ethogram is not a pain scoring system and should not be used for this purpose, and neither to guide clinical decision-making. As a result, it could be used as an additional tool to help veterinary health professionals better recognize the behaviors described. Moreover, the expert panel comprised solely of female veterinarians, who historically provide higher pain scores than men in pain assessment in small animals [50]. Hence, different results may have been obtained with a balanced gender panel or one composed only of male veterinarians. Finally, it is possible that final descriptors and content validity might have been influenced by the size of the panel.

A working knowledge of normal cat behavior (i.e., home environment and hospital setting) is helpful for assessing behavioral signs of pain [4,21]. Additionally, observation and response of the cat after being provided a safe hiding place should facilitate clinical pain assessment [4]. A video-based illustration demonstrating each behavior intended to assist in training veterinary health professionals in acute pain assessment is in progress. This ethogram is now being used to characterize the duration and/or frequency of specific behaviors in kittens undergoing ovariohysterectomy and how behaviors are discriminated between painful and non-painful kittens. In conclusion, this ethogram provides a description of behaviors relevant for acute pain assessment in cats after content and face validity.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Supplementary table reporting the individual scoring assignments as determined by the expert panel for item content validity index.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Supplementary references of articles included in the literature review.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the expert panel contributing to this study: Dr. Beatriz P Monteiro, Dr. Diane Frank, Dr. Nathalie Dowgray and Dr. Kelly St-Denis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Rodan I, Dowgray N, Carney HC, Carozza E, Ellis SL, Heath S, et al. 2022 AAFP/ISFM Cat Friendly Veterinary Interaction Guidelines: Approach and Handling Techniques. J Feline Med Surg. 2022; 24: 1093–132. doi: 10.1177/1098612X221128760 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Monteiro BP, Lascelles BDX, Murrell J, Robertson S, Steagall PVM, Wright B. 2022 WSAVA guidelines for the recognition, assessment and treatment of pain. J Small Anim Pract. 2022; 64: 177–254. doi: 10.1111/jsap.13566 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Horwitz DF, Rodan I. Behavioral awareness in the feline consultation: Understanding physical and emotional health. J Feline Med Surg. 2018; 20: 423–36. doi: 10.1177/1098612X18771204 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steagall P V, Robertson S, Simon B, Warne LN, Shilo-Benjamini Y, Taylor S. 2022 ISFM Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Acute Pain in Cats. J Feline Med Surg. 2022; 24: 4–30. doi: 10.1177/1098612X211066268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Taylor S, St Denis K, Collins S, Dowgray N, Ellis SL, Heath S, et al. 2022 ISFM/AAFP Cat Friendly Veterinary Environment Guidelines. J Feline Med Surg. 2022; 24: 1133–63. doi: 10.1177/1098612X221128763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gruen ME, Lascelles BDX, Colleran E, Gottlieb A, Johnson J, Lotsikas P, et al. 2022 AAHA Pain Management Guidelines for Dogs and Cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2022; 58: 55–76. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7292 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Belli M, de Oliveira AR, de Lima MT, Trindade PHE, Steagall P V., Luna SPL . Clinical validation of the short and long UNESP-Botucatu scales for feline pain assessment. PeerJ. 2021; 9:e11225. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Reid J, Scott EM, Calvo G, Nolan AM. Definitive Glasgow acute pain scale for cats: Validation and intervention level. Vet Rec. 2017; 180: 449. doi: 10.1136/vr.104208 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brondani JT, Mama KR, Luna SPL, Wright BD, Niyom S, Ambrosio J, et al. Validation of the English version of the UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional composite pain scale for assessing postoperative pain in cats. BMC Vet Res. 2013; 9: 143. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Evangelista MC, Watanabe R, Leung VSY, Monteiro BP, O’Toole E, Pang DSJ, et al. Facial expressions of pain in cats: the development and validation of a Feline Grimace Scale. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55693-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Luna SPL, Trindade PHE, Monteiro BP, Crosignani N, della Rocca G, Ruel HLM, et al. Multilingual validation of the short form of the Unesp-Botucatu Feline Pain Scale (UFEPS-SF). PeerJ. 2022; 10: 1–29. doi: 10.7717/peerj.13134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Calvo G, Holden E, Reid J, Scott EM, Firth A, Bell A, et al. Development of a behaviour-based measurement tool with defined intervention level for assessing acute pain in cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2014; 55: 622–9. doi: 10.1111/jsap.12280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Watanabe R, Frank D, Steagall P V. Pain behaviors before and after treatment of oral disease in cats using video assessment: A prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial. BMC Vet Res. 2020; 16: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02302-w . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Stanton LA, Sullivan MS, Fazio JM. A standardized ethogram for the felidae: A tool for behavioral researchers. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2015; 173: 3–16. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mascarenhas MB, Botelho CB, Manier BSML, Costa TS, Fernandes JI An unusual case of feline otitis externa due to sporotrichosis. J Feline Med Surg Open Reports. 2019; 5: 205511691984081. doi: 10.1177/2055116919840810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wood C, Scott EM. Feline ocular post-traumatic sarcomas: Current understanding, treatment and monitoring. J Feline Med Surg. 2019; 21: 835–42. doi: 10.1177/1098612X19870389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Forman MA, Steiner JM, Armstrong PJ, Camus MS, Gaschen L, Hill SL, et al. ACVIM consensus statement on pancreatitis in cats. J Vet Intern Med. 2021; 35: 703–23. doi: 10.1111/jvim.16053 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lin J, Nell B, Horikawa T, Zarfoss M. Feline intralenticular Encephalitozoon cuniculi: three cases from California. J Feline Med Surg Open Reports. 2022; 8: 205511692211067. doi: 10.1177/20551169221106721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006; 29: 489–97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Merola I, Mills DS. Behavioural Signs of Pain in Cats: An Expert Consensus. PLoS One. 2016; 1: e0150040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150040 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Steagall P V. Analgesia: What Makes Cats Different/Challenging and What Is Critical for Cats? Vet Clin North Am—Small Anim Pract. 2020;50(4):749–67. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Robertson S. Assessment and Recognition of Acute Pain. In: Feline Anesthesia and Pain Management. Hoboken, NJ, USA; 2017. p. 199–217. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Steagall PV, Monteiro BP. Acute pain in cats: Recent advances in clinical assessment. J Feline Med Surg. 2019;21: 25–34. doi: 10.1177/1098612X18808103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Robertson S. How do we know they hurt? Assessing acute pain in cats. In Pract. 2018;40: 440–8. doi: 10.1136/vr.k5384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Robertson S. Feline acute pain series: assessment of acute pain in cats. Today’s Vet Pract. 2014; 4: 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu T, Ji R-R. New insights into the mechanisms of itch: are pain and itch controlled by distinct mechanisms? Pflügers Arch—Eur J Physiol. 2013; 465: 1671–85. doi: 10.1007/s00424-013-1284-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cloutier S, Newberry RC, Cambridge AJ, Tobias KM. Behavioural signs of postoperative pain in cats following onychectomy or tenectomy surgery. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005; 92: 325–35. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rütgen BC, Stüger HP, Holzmann A, Bubna-Littitz H, Skalicky M, Thalhammer JG. Postoperative pain-associated behaviour in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Wien Tierarztl Monatsschr. 2011; 98: 119–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brondani JT, Luna LSP, Beier SL, Minto BW, Padovani CR. Analgesic efficacy of perioperative use of vedaprofen, tramadol or their combination in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. J Feline Med Surg. 2009; 11: 420–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jfms.2008.10.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Reid J, Nolan AM, Hughes L, Lascelles D, Pawson P, Scott EM. Development of the short-form Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF) and derivation of an analgesic intervention score. Anim Welf. 2007;16: 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.de Grauw JCC, van Loon J. Systematic pain assessment in horses. Vet J. 2016; 209: 14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Oliveira FA, Luna SPL, do Amaral JB, Rodrigues KA, Sant’Anna AC, Daolio M, et al. Validation of the UNESP-Botucatu unidimensional composite pain scale for assessing postoperative pain in cattle. BMC Vet Res. 2014; 10: 200. doi: 10.1186/s12917-014-0200-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Luna SPL, de Araújo AL, da Nóbrega Neto PI, Brondani JT, de Oliveira FA, Azerêdo LM dos S, et al. Validation of the UNESP-Botucatu pig composite acute pain scale (UPAPS). PLoS One. 2020; 15:e0233552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Haddad Pinho R, Luna SPL, Esteves Trindade PH, Augusto Justo A, Santilli Cima D, Werneck Fonseca M, et al. Validation of the rabbit pain behaviour scale (RPBS) to assess acute postoperative pain in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). PLoS One. 2022; 17: e0268973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Waran N., Best L., Williams V, Waran N, Best L, Williams, et al. A preliminary study of behaviour-based indicators of pain in cats. Animal Welfare. Anim Welf. 2007; 16: 105–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Torcivia C, McDonnell S. Equine discomfort ethogram. Animals. 2022; 11: 1–19. doi: 10.3390/ani11020580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bennett V, Gourkow N, Mills DS. Facial correlates of emotional behaviour in the domestic cat (Felis catus). Behav Processes. 2017; 141: 342–50. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhang L, Bian Z, Liu Q, Deng B. Dealing With Stress in Cats: What Is New About the Olfactory Strategy? Front Vet Sci. 2022; 9: 3–6. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.928943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Buisman M, Hasiuk MMM, Gunn M, Pang DSJ. The influence of demeanor on scores from two validated feline pain assessment scales during the perioperative period. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2017; 44: 646–55. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2016.09.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Levine ED. Feline Fear and Anxiety. Vet Clin North Am—Small Anim Pract. 2008;38(5):1065–79. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.04.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tavernier C, Ahmed S, Houpt KA, Yeon SC. Feline vocal communication. J Vet Sci. 2020; 21: 1–17. doi: 10.4142/jvs.2020.21.e18 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gajdoš Kmecová N, Pet’ková B, Kottferová J, Skurková L, Mills DS. Are These Cats Playing? A Closer Look at Social Play in Cats and Proposal for a Psychobiological Approach and Standard Terminology. Front Vet Sci. 2021; 8: 811. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.712310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cambridge AJ, Tobias KM, Newberry RC, Sarkar DK. Subjective and objective measurements of postoperative pain in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000; 217: 685–90. doi: 10.2460/javma.2000.217.685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Malo A, Cheng AJ, Ruel HL, Monteiro BP, Lutevele N, Marangoni S, et al. Randomised, prospective, blinded, clinical trial of opioid-free injectable anaesthesia with or without multimodal analgesia in kittens undergoing ovariohysterectomy. J Feline Med Surg. 2023; 25: 1–10. doi: 10.1177/1098612X231158582 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Evangelista MC, Monteiro BP, Steagall P V. Measurement properties of grimace scales for pain assessment in nonhuman mammals: a systematic review. Pain. 2022; 163: 697–714. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002474 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Evangelista MC, Steagall P V. Agreement and reliability of the Feline Grimace Scale among cat owners, veterinarians, veterinary students and nurses. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5262. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84696-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Monteiro BP, Lee NHY, Steagall P V. Can cat caregivers reliably assess acute pain in cats using the Feline Grimace Scale? A large bilingual global survey. J Feline Med Surg. 2023; 25: 1098612X2211454. doi: 10.1177/1098612X221145499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Clark JS, Bentley E, Smith LJ. Evaluation of topical nalbuphine or oral tramadol as analgesics for corneal pain in dogs: A pilot study. Vet Ophthalmol. 2011; 14: 358–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-5224.2011.00883.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Stiles J. Ocular manifestations of feline viral diseases. Vet J. 2014; 2012: 166–73. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.11.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Beswick A, Dewey C, Johnson R, Dowsett-Cooper J, Niel L. Survey of Ontario veterinarians’ knowledge and attitudes on pain in dogs and cats in 2012. Can Vet J = La Rev Vet Can. 2016; 57: 1274–80. doi: 10.1136/vr.102834 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Harvie P Portugaliza

21 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-13666An ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats based on expert consensusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Steagall,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: As the main component of the study covers a systematic review of literature, include in the appendix a detailed answers to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (http://prisma-statement.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harvie P. Portugaliza, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

As the main component of the study covers a systematic review of literature, include in the appendix a detailed answers to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (http://prisma-statement.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for this interesting study.

Please see my comments here:

Line 45: remove “.” after “and’.

Line 51: is this the Authors’ opinion or evidence from literature? Please rephrase or add references here.

Line 58: I agree of the individual response to pain but I would add a reference here

Line 80-82: you do not address this in your study. I would remove it.

Line 82-83: you describe general acute pain behaviours rather than specific pain behaviour for these conditions. I would remove it or rephrase it.

Line 86 : I would add “general” before “acute “; I would remove the following sentence “that can discriminate painful from non-painful individuals”.

Line 87: Please add here the hypothesis for the content validity.

Line 92: remove ‘’,” after “20th”, similarly line 152 ( also please add space between “wording” and “between”.

Content and face validity: was only one round applied here? Did the panel have the chance to review their collective responses after the first round to ensure a general consensus was reached?

Line 160: table 1: I would change the citation to “an ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats submitted for content and face validity with I-CVI scores”

Line 175: table 2: I would change the citation to “Ethogram of acute pain behavior in cats following expert consensus”

Line 186: of those descriptors that did not present full agreement, were they re-sent to the panel for further discussion and feedback to reach a consensus?

Line 221: “this” : it is not clear what increases subjectivity. Please rephrase

Line 222: I would either add a reference here regarding misinterpretation by veterinary professional with English not as native language, or remove this sentence. Subjectivity of interpretation is common and can happen to anyone not “especially” to foreigners.

Line 236-238: “A working…signs of pain” . This is an important sentence, but I am wondering if it would be more appropriate in the conclusions. Please remove it from here. Same lines 271-272.

Line 243, 245, 288, 300, etc : “question2, question 3 and question 5. They have not been mentioned before in the main text. Please add or remove from here. Line 243: remove the repeated word “in”

Line 273-278: the aim of this study is to provide an ethogram for acute pain behaviour not a tool for pain assessment. therefore, I would remove this paragraph as not pertinent. Or rephrase it based on the contents.

Line 301: posture&body position: “crouched/hunched up” I am wondering if this term could have been improved/better described based on the fact that there is so much confusion between “crouched” and “hunched”

Reviewer #2: This is a great manuscript, assessing additional behaviors associated with pain and not feeling well in cats. There are a few typos (see attached). The only thing that hasn't been thoroughly addressed are the statistics. This should be addressed in the "Methods".

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ManuscriptReview.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 28;18(9):e0292224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292224.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Aug 2023

Dear Editor,

Comment: As the main component of the study covers a systematic review of literature, include in the appendix a detailed answers to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (http://prisma-statement.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to act as the handling editor of our manuscript.

The development and validation of this ethogram included a comprehensive literature search and with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, a systematic review was not conducted and, therefore the PRISMA guidelines do not apply. We did not classify studies based on design, or carry out risk or bias assessment, used intervention reporting or an evaluation of quality and strength of evidence. Our laboratory published some systematic reviews with a very different approach than the current ethogram:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36662813/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34510132/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23782347/

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for this interesting study.

Please see my comments here:

Authors: Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your valuable input and your willingness to review our study.

Line 45: remove “.” after “and’.

Authors: Removed

Line 51: is this the Authors’ opinion or evidence from literature? Please rephrase or add references here.

Authors: References have now been added. This is a historical issue in feline medicine and surgery.

Line 58: I agree of the individual response to pain but I would add a reference here

Authors: Reference added.

Line 80-82: you do not address this in your study. I would remove it.

Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. We acknowledge your concern; however, we believe it is important to highlight these literature gaps in the introduction of the manuscript as part of the justification for the study.

Line 82-83: you describe general acute pain behaviours rather than specific pain behaviour for these conditions. I would remove it or rephrase it

Authors: Added the word ‘general’.

Line 86 : I would add “general” before “acute “; I would remove the following sentence “that can discriminate painful from non-painful individuals”.

Authors: Thank you. This sentence was amended.

Line 87: Please add here the hypothesis for the content validity.

Authors: Content validity index involves a quantitative evaluation that can result in any degree to which an instrument may be an appropriate sample of descriptors for the construct being measured (i.e. pain). Therefore, it is not possible to set a defined hypothesis giving the quantitative nature of the CVI, which is dependent on expert consensus that could lead to any ‘direction’.

Line 92: remove ‘’,” after “20th”, similarly line 152 ( also please add space between “wording” and “between”.

Authors: Amended.

Content and face validity: was only one round applied here? Did the panel have the chance to review their collective responses after the first round to ensure a general consensus was reached?

Authors: No. Content and face validity was assessed during one round. This approach was guided by the calculation of I-CVI, which was set before panel evaluation and derived from individual and independent assessments of each item. To the authors’ knowledge (Polli & Beck, 2006), a second round of evaluation is not always required in this context, which is different from, for example, the Delphi methodology.

Line 160: table 1: I would change the citation to “an ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats submitted for content and face validity with I-CVI scores”

Authors: Done.

-

Line 175: table 2: I would change the citation to “Ethogram of acute pain behavior in cats following expert consensus”

Authors: Done.

Line 186: of those descriptors that did not present full agreement, were they re-sent to the panel for further discussion and feedback to reach a consensus?

Authors: No, they were not as the final I-CVI was predetermined and used as the outcome for expert consensus.

Line 221: “this” : it is not clear what increases subjectivity. Please rephrase

Authors: The sentence has been deleted as per the comment below.

Line 222: I would either add a reference here regarding misinterpretation by veterinary professional with English not as native language, or remove this sentence. Subjectivity of interpretation is common and can happen to anyone not “especially” to foreigners.

Authors: Sentence deleted as per suggestion.

Line 236-238: “A working…signs of pain” . This is an important sentence, but I am wondering if it would be more appropriate in the conclusions. Please remove it from here. Same lines 271-272.

Authors: Removed and now added to the conclusions (lines 424-427).

Line 243, 245, 288, 300, etc : “question2, question 3 and question 5. They have not been mentioned before in the main text. Please add or remove from here.

Authors: Deleted

Line 243: remove the repeated word “in”

Authors: Deleted

Line 273-278: the aim of this study is to provide an ethogram for acute pain behaviour not a tool for pain assessment. therefore, I would remove this paragraph as not pertinent. Or rephrase it based on the contents.

Authors: Deleted. Please note that references have been reordered.

Line 301: posture&body position: “crouched/hunched up” I am wondering if this term could have

been improved/better described based on the fact that there is so much confusion between “crouched” and “hunched”

Authors: The distinction between these terms remains somewhat ambiguous. One might argue if there is a true difference or just semantics. These two terms share similarities and are occasionally treated as synonyms. Both of these expressions frequently appear in case reports and reviews, and they occasionally overlap and are even used interchangeably. However, we discussed some of the concerns with the terminology. The definition of "crouching" has been described (Waran et al., 2007), but we could not clearly find one for “hunched up". We believe that mostly important these terms describe posture and body position of cats with pain, which is more important than a precise definition of each. Best wishes,

Reviewer #2: This is a great manuscript, assessing additional behaviors associated with pain and not feeling well in cats. There are a few typos (see attached). The only thing that hasn't been thoroughly addressed are the statistics. This should be addressed in the "Methods".

Authors: Thank you for your valuable input and for taking the time to correct the typos. This is rather unusual but apart from the I-CVI, no other statistical analysis was conducted. We have included a sentence along with the I-CVI equation. Indeed, descriptive studies involving ethograms do not always involve statistical analysis. In regards the use of ‘bread loaf’ position, the authors are not aware of this terminology. Therefore, we could not comment on it or make changes in the manuscript. Best wishes,

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Harvie P Portugaliza

18 Sep 2023

An ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats based on expert consensus

PONE-D-23-13666R1

Dear Dr. Steagall,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Harvie P. Portugaliza, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for editing the manuscript following the previous comments. It reads well.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Harvie P Portugaliza

20 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-13666R1

An ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats based on expert consensus

Dear Dr. Steagall:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Harvie P. Portugaliza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Supplementary table reporting the individual scoring assignments as determined by the expert panel for item content validity index.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Supplementary references of articles included in the literature review.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ManuscriptReview.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES