Accuracy of different methods of estimating the weight of horses

Ellis, Joyce; Hollands, Teresa

doi:10.1136/vr.143.12.335

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is often not possible to weigh a horse using weigh scales in first-opinion practice as most consultations will occur outside a clinic where weight scales are unlikely to be available. However, it is possible to estimate the weight of a horse using a weight tape [29]. The same problem exists in human medicine; dosing regimens for antimicrobial drugs do not routinely take into consideration the bodyweight of the person for whom the antimicrobial is being prescribed despite recommended dose rates being available [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial prescribing practice in UK equine veterinary practice

Hughes¹,

Pinchbeck²,

Callaby³

et al. 2012

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial prescribing practice in UK equine veterinary practice

Hughes¹,

Pinchbeck²,

Callaby³

et al. 2012

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Cintra, 2013;Santos, 1981;Torres and Jardim, 1987;Marcenac and Aublet, 1964). 2 Formula proposed by Hall (Cintra, 2013;Wagner and Tyler, 2011;Carroll and Huntington, 1988;Ellis and Hollands, 1998). (Table 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation methods and correction factors for body weight in Mangalarga Marchador horses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of six body weight (BW) estimating methods in Mangalarga Marchador horses (MM) (n = 318): method A -tape placements at three different positions around the thoracic girth; B -Crevat and Quetelec's formula; C -Hall's formula; D -Hintz and Griffiths' table; E -Santos' table; and F -Cintra's formula. For additional analyses, gender, age, and gestational stage were considered. Estimated average BW was compared to the actual scale weight by the paired T test, mean predicted error, and determination coefficient. In the general population, methods A (position 3), B, and C estimated BW that were different from that of the scale. Method A, at positions 1 and 2, was more accurate in predicting the scale weight results compared with all other methods. For pregnant mares, the tape in positions 1 and 2 in method A did not differ from those of the scale. Method A in positions 1 and 2 and the table (method E) may be used to estimate the BW of males and females of different ages and/or gestational stages. To use Methods B and C, correction factors are necessary to precisely estimate the body weights in this breed.

show abstract

“…Body mass was measured using weight scale (TN group) or calculated using girth at the withers and body length, as previously described (MO group). Body condition score was assessed by a single investigator using a previously described system .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeatability of Oral Sugar Test Results, Glucagon‐Like Peptide‐1 Measurements, and Serum High‐Molecular‐Weight Adiponectin Concentrations in Horses

Frank

Walsh²

2017

Veterinary Internal Medicne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRepeatability of the oral sugar test (OST) has not been evaluated.ObjectivesWe hypothesized that OST glucose, insulin, active (aGLP‐1) and total (tGLP‐1) glucagon‐like peptide 1, and high‐molecular‐weight (HMW) adiponectin results would be repeatable.AnimalsFifty‐three horses from a Tennessee research facility (n = 23) and private practice in Missouri (n = 30), including animals with medical histories of equine metabolic syndrome.MethodsTwo OSTs were performed 7–14 days apart and plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were measured at 0, 60, and 75 minutes; a positive result was defined as detection of an insulin concentration >45 μU/mL at 60 or 75 minutes. Plasma aGLP‐1 and serum tGLP‐1 concentrations at 75 minutes and serum HMW adiponectin concentrations at 0 minute were measured in the Missouri group. Bland‐Altman analyses were performed.ResultsNo adverse events were reported. Bland‐Altman analysis indicated mean ± SD bias of 1.5 ± 14.8 μU/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], −27.6 to 30.5 μU/mL) and 1.2 ± 16.1 μU/mL (95% CI, −30.4 to 32.8 μU/mL) for insulin concentrations at 60 and 75 minutes, respectively. There was 91 and 83% agreement in test interpretation between test days for OST insulin results for all horses in the Tennessee and Missouri groups, respectively.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceRepeatability of the OST was acceptable when values obtained from Bland‐Altman analyses were evaluated, and there was good agreement in binary (negative/positive) test interpretation for insulin concentrations. However, wide 95% CIs were detected for insulin concentrations.

show abstract

Accuracy of different methods of estimating the weight of horses

Cited by 49 publications

References 1 publication

Antimicrobial prescribing practice in UK equine veterinary practice

Antimicrobial prescribing practice in UK equine veterinary practice

Estimation methods and correction factors for body weight in Mangalarga Marchador horses

Repeatability of Oral Sugar Test Results, Glucagon‐Like Peptide‐1 Measurements, and Serum High‐Molecular‐Weight Adiponectin Concentrations in Horses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About