FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of ultrasonographic ...
Equine veterinary journal2026; doi: 10.1002/evj.70147

Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of ultrasonographic intestinal wall thickness measurements in healthy horses.

Abstract: Abdominal ultrasound is widely used to evaluate the intestinal tract of horses. Despite being a routine examination, there is limited data on the reliability of this diagnostic procedure. Objective: To investigate intra- and inter-rater reliability of ultrasonographic intestinal wall thickness measurements in healthy horses. A second aim was to assess variance within repeated measurements to determine threshold values that distinguish whether differences between repeated examinations are true findings versus solely due to measurement variation. Methods: In vivo reliability study. Methods: Eight healthy horses (7 Standardbreds, 1 Warmblood) were ultrasonographically examined in six intestinal regions: duodenum, right dorsal colon (RDC), right ventral colon (RVC), caecum, jejunum and left ventral colon (LVC). In each horse, triplicate measurements of intestinal wall thickness were performed by three sonographers on three consecutive days. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess intra- and inter-rater reliability. Results: Intra-rater ICC was <0.5 for all regions except the duodenum (0.52). Inter-rater ICC was <0.5 for duodenum, caecum and jejunum and between 0.5 and 0.75 for RDC, RVC and LVC. The standard deviation of repeated measurements was low (0.33-0.45 mm). Across all regions, 95% (±2 SD) of all reported measurements were within a 1 mm range. Conclusions: Homogenous study group and use of healthy horses may limit generalisability to clinical populations. Conclusions: Ultrasonographic measurements of intestinal wall thickness show limited consistency but low absolute variation. Differences of less than 1 mm fall within expected repeated measurement variability. This study supports the use of repeated ultrasonographic intestinal wall thickness measurements in clinical practice and provides a practical cut-off value of 1 mm to differentiate expected variability within and between observers from true changes in intestinal wall thickness.
© 2026 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-01-04 PubMed ID: 41486579DOI: 10.1002/evj.70147Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study investigated the consistency of ultrasound measurements of intestinal wall thickness in healthy horses by examining how reliably the same and different sonographers could measure the thickness over multiple days.
  • It further aimed to identify a threshold to discern whether differences in repeated measurements were due to true changes or just measurement variability.

Introduction and Purpose

  • Abdominal ultrasound is a common diagnostic tool for assessing horses’ intestines.
  • Despite routine use, there was a lack of data on how reproducible intestinal wall thickness measurements are via ultrasound in horses.
  • Primary objectives included:
    • Evaluating intra-rater reliability (consistency when the same sonographer measures repeatedly).
    • Evaluating inter-rater reliability (consistency between different sonographers).
    • Determining the extent of variability in repeated measurements and establishing a practical threshold to identify true anatomical changes versus measurement noise.

Methods

  • Subjects:
    • Eight healthy horses (7 Standardbreds and 1 Warmblood).
  • Measurement regions:
    • Duodenum.
    • Right dorsal colon (RDC).
    • Right ventral colon (RVC).
    • Caecum.
    • Jejunum.
    • Left ventral colon (LVC).
  • Procedure:
    • Ultrasound examinations were performed on each horse in each region.
    • Three different sonographers each took three measurements (triplicate) per region on three consecutive days.
  • Analysis:
    • Calculated intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to quantify both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.
    • Assessed variation across repeated measurements to decide meaningful threshold values.

Results

  • Intra-rater reliability (same sonographer over time):
    • ICC was less than 0.5 for all regions except duodenum (0.52), which indicates poor to moderate reliability.
  • Inter-rater reliability (between sonographers):
    • ICC was less than 0.5 for duodenum, caecum, and jejunum, showing poor reliability.
    • ICC between 0.5 and 0.75 (moderate reliability) for the right dorsal colon (RDC), right ventral colon (RVC), and left ventral colon (LVC).
  • Measurement variability:
    • Standard deviation of repeated measurements was low (ranging from 0.33 to 0.45 mm).
    • 95% of all measurements fell within ±2 standard deviations, roughly corresponding to a 1 mm range of variability.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications

  • The study group was homogeneous (healthy horses only), which may limit applicability to horses with intestinal diseases or broader clinical populations.
  • Ultrasound measurements of intestinal wall thickness have limited consistency between and within raters but show low absolute variation in measurements.
  • Differences of less than 1 mm in repeated measurements likely represent expected variation rather than true anatomical changes.
  • Thus, repeated ultrasonographic measurements can be useful clinically, with a practical cut-off of 1 mm difference to differentiate between measurement noise and actual changes in wall thickness.

Cite This Article

APA
Hansen T, Kendall A, Finne R, Law E, Ringdahl A, Nostell K. (2026). Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of ultrasonographic intestinal wall thickness measurements in healthy horses. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1002/evj.70147

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Hansen, Tina
  • Mälaren Equine Clinic, Sigtuna, Sweden.
Kendall, Anna
  • Mälaren Equine Clinic, Sigtuna, Sweden.
Finne, Rebecca
  • Mälaren Equine Clinic, Sigtuna, Sweden.
Law, Ellen
  • Diagnostic Imaging Clinic, University Animal Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ringdahl, Agnes
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Nostell, Katarina
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

References

This article includes 23 references
  1. Busoni V, De Busscher V, Lopez D, Verwilghen D, Cassart D. Evaluation of a protocol for fast localized abdominal sonography of horses (FLASH) admitted for colic. Vet J 2011;188(1):77–82.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.02.017google scholar: lookup
  2. Cribb NC, Arroyo LG. Techniques and accuracy of abdominal ultrasound in gastrointestinal diseases of horses and foals. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2018;34(1):25–38.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2017.11.001google scholar: lookup
  3. Taylor SD, Pusterla N, Vaughan B, Whitcomb MB, Wilson WD. Intestinal neoplasia in horses. J Vet Intern Med 2006;20(6):1429–1436.
    doi: 10.1892/0891-6640(2006)20[1429:inih]2.0.co;2google scholar: lookup
  4. Klohnen A, Vachon AM, Fischer AT Jr. Use of diagnostic ultrasonography in horses with signs of acute abdominal pain. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996;209(9):1597–1601.
  5. Jones SL, Davis J, Rowlingson K. Ultrasonographic findings in horses with right dorsal colitis: five cases (2000–2001). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222(9):1248–1251.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2003.222.1248google scholar: lookup
  6. Ceriotti S, Zucca E, Stancari G, Conturba B, Stucchi L, Ferro E. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonographic evaluation of small intestine wall thickness in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in horses: a retrospective study. J Equine Vet Sci 2016;37:6–10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.11.003google scholar: lookup
  7. Pease AP, Scrivani PV, Erb HN, Cook VL. Accuracy of increased large‐intestine wall thickness during ultrasonography for diagnosing large‐colon torsion in 42 horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2004;45(3):220–224.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2004.04038.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  8. Bithell S, Habershon‐Butcher JL, Bowen IM, Hallowell GD. Repeatability and reproducibility of transabdominal ultrasonographic intestinal wall thickness measurements in Thoroughbred horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51(6):647–651.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2010.01715.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  9. Bevevino KE, Edwards JF, Cohen ND, de Solis CN. Ex vivo comparison of ultrasonographic intestinal wall layering with histology in horses: a feasibility study. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2021;62(3):316–330.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.12946google scholar: lookup
  10. Diana A, Freccero F, Giancola F, Linta N, Pietra M, Luca V. Ex vivo ultrasonographic and histological morphometry of small intestinal wall layers in horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2022;63(3):353–363.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.13059google scholar: lookup
  11. Siwinska N, Zak A, Baron M, Cylna M, Borowicz H. Right dorsal colon ultrasonography in normal adult ponies and miniature horses. PLoS One 2017;12(10):e0186825.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186825google scholar: lookup
  12. Epstein K, Short D, Parente E, Reef V, Southwood L. Gastrointestinal ultrasonography in normal adult ponies. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49(3):282–286.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00367.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  13. Kirberger RM, van den Berg JS, Gottschalk RD, Guthrie AJ. Duodenal ultrasonography in the normal adult horse. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1995;36(1):50–56.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.1995.tb00212google scholar: lookup
  14. Hendrickson EHS, Malone ED, Sage AM. Identification of normal parameters for ultrasonographic examination of the equine large colon and cecum. Can Vet J 2007;48(3):289–291.
  15. Ibrahim HMM, El‐Ashker MR. Reference values and repeatability of transabdominal ultrasonographic gastrointestinal tract thickness and motility in healthy donkeys (Equus asinus). J Equine Vet Sci 2020;92:103153.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103153google scholar: lookup
  16. Chang J, Porter IR, Forman MA, Shcherban N, Basran PS. Intra‐ and interobserver assessments of intestinal wall thickness and segmentations from transverse sections of feline abdominal ultrasound images. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2023;64(1):131–139.
    doi: 10.1111/vru.13148google scholar: lookup
  17. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.
  18. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155–163.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012google scholar: lookup
  19. Barton MH. Understanding abdominal ultrasonography in horses: which way is up?. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2011;33(9):E2.
  20. Norman T, Chaffin K, Schmitz D. Effects of fasting and intraluminal contrast enhancement on ultrasonographic appearance of the equine small intestine. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010;51(6):642–646.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2010.01719.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  21. Mitchell CF, Malone ED, Sage AM, Niksich K. Evaluation of gastrointestinal activity patterns in healthy horses using B mode and Doppler ultrasonography. Can Vet J 2005;46(2):134–140.
  22. Fleischer AC, Muhletaler CA, James AE Jr. Sonographic assessment of the bowel wall. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981;136(5):887–891.
    doi: 10.2214/ajr.136.5.887google scholar: lookup
  23. Zander D, Hüske S, Hoffmann B, Cui XW, Dong Y, Lim A. Ultrasound image optimization (‘Knobology’): B‐mode. Ultrasound Int Open 2020;6(1):E14–E24.
    doi: 10.1055/a-1223-1134google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,030 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.