FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Visually Assessing Equine Quality of Movement: A Survey to I...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(18); doi: 10.3390/ani13182822

Visually Assessing Equine Quality of Movement: A Survey to Identify Key Movements and Patient-Specific Measures.

Abstract: Outcome measures are essential for monitoring treatment efficacy. The lack of measures for quality of movement in equine physiotherapy and rehabilitation impairs evidence-based practice. To develop a new field-based outcome measure, it is necessary to determine movements most frequently observed during assessment of rehabilitation and performance management cases. An online survey of 81 equine sports medicine veterinarians and equine allied-health clinicians was conducted. The key movements identified included walk and trot on both firm and soft surfaces in a straight line and on a small circle, plus step back, hind leg cross-over, transitions and lunging at walk, trot and canter. The main barriers to observing some movements are access to suitable surfaces and the training level of the horse and handler. Subjective visual assessment of live or videoed horses was the most common method used to track progress of complex movements. The majority (82%) of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that a modified Patient-Specific Functional Scale would be useful for measuring complex movements. Comments from all professions show a desire to have outcome measures relevant to their needs. This survey identified 24 in-hand movements, which can be used to form the foundation of a simple field-based outcome measure for quality of movement.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-09-05 PubMed ID: 37760222PubMed Central: PMC10525514DOI: 10.3390/ani13182822Google 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.

The research investigates the best ways to measure the quality of movement in horses undergoing rehabilitation or performance management. It reveals key movements to watch for and notes that visual assessment is the common method for tracking progress. The study also points out a desire for more relevant measures among veterinary professionals.

Objective of the Research

  • The primary aim of the study was to develop new outcome measures for equine physiotherapy and rehabilitation, as there is currently a lack of methods to monitor the quality of a horse’s movement effectively.
  • This research was initiated to enhance evidence-based practice in this field, which is hindered by a lack of efficient measures.
  • The paper also aimed to assess the support for a modified Patient-Specific Functional Scale among veterinary professionals to determine its usefulness in measuring complex movements.

Methods and Procedure

  • The researchers used an online survey to gather information from 81 equine sports medicine veterinarians and equine allied-health clinicians.
  • The survey aimed to determine the movements most frequently observed during the assessment of rehabilitation and performance management cases.

Key Findings

  • The study identified key movements, including walk and trot on both firm and soft surfaces in a straight line and on a small circle, step back, hind leg crossover, transitions and lunging at walk, trot and canter.
  • The researchers found that some movements are challenging to observe due to access to suitable surfaces and the training level of the horse and handler.
  • It was found that subjective visual assessment of live or videoed horses was the most common method used to track the progress of complex movements.
  • A significant majority of the survey participants, 82%, agreed or strongly agreed that a modified Patient-Specific Functional Scale would be useful for measuring complex movements.

Conclusions and Significance

  • The study findings show that veterinary professionals show strong support for having more relevant outcome measures for their needs.
  • The study identified 24 ‘in-hand’ movements, which could form the core of a simple field-based outcome measure for quality of movement assessments in horses.
  • This research might aid in developing more efficient, evidence-based practices for monitoring rehabilitation and performance management in equines.

Cite This Article

APA
Bowen AG, Tabor G, Labens R, Randle H. (2023). Visually Assessing Equine Quality of Movement: A Survey to Identify Key Movements and Patient-Specific Measures. Animals (Basel), 13(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182822

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 18

Researcher Affiliations

Bowen, Annette G
  • School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Science and Health, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Tabor, Gillian
  • Equestrian Performance Research Centre, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, Gloucestershire, UK.
Labens, Raphael
  • School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Science and Health, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Randle, Hayley
  • School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Science and Health, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.

Grant Funding

  • not applicable / Australian Government Research and Training Program Scholarship

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This study was conducted as part of AB’s PhD program of research. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 62 references
  1. Hug F, Hodges PW, Carroll TJ, De Martino E, Magnard J, Tucker K. Motor adaptations to pain during a bilateral plantarflexion task: Does the cost of using the non-painful limb matter?. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0154524.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154524pmc: PMC4845994pubmed: 27115991google scholar: lookup
  2. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 five domains model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 2020;10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  3. Dyson S. Can lameness be graded reliably?. Equine Vet. J. 2011;43:379–382.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00391.xpubmed: 21631579google scholar: lookup
  4. Goff L. Physiotherapy assessment for the equine athlete. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2016;32:31–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2015.12.002pubmed: 26898960google scholar: lookup
  5. McGowan CM, Cottriall S. Introduction to equine physical therapy and rehabilitation. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2016;32:1–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2015.12.006pubmed: 26906262google scholar: lookup
  6. McGowan CM, Goff L. Animal Physiotherapy: Assessment, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Animals. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated; Chichester, UK: 2016.
  7. Australian Physiotherapy Association. Standards for Physiotherapy Practices. 8th ed. Australian Physiotherapy Association; Camberwell Victoria, Australia: 2011. p. 68.
  8. Bergh A. Outcome measures in animal physiotherapy. In: McGowan CM., Goff L., editors. Animal Physiotherapy: Assessment, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Animals. 2nd ed. Wiley Blackwell; Chichester, UK: 2016. pp. 171–198.
  9. Thirkell J, Hyland R. A survey examining attitudes towards equine complementary therapies for the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;59:82–87.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.10.004google scholar: lookup
  10. Duncan EAS, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012;12:96.
    doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-96pmc: PMC3358245pubmed: 22506982google scholar: lookup
  11. Hardeman A, van Weeren P, Braganca F, Warmerdam H, Bok H. A first exploration of perceived pros and cons of quantitative gait analysis in equine clinical practice. Equine Vet. Educ. 2021;34:e438–e444.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13505google scholar: lookup
  12. Gómez Álvarez CB, Oosterlinck M. The ongoing quest for a validated, universally accepted visual lameness grading scale. Equine Vet. J. 2022;55:5–8.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13896pubmed: 36385423google scholar: lookup
  13. Fuller CJ, Bladon BM, Driver AJ, Barr ARS. The intra- and inter-assessor reliability of measurement of functional outcome by lameness scoring in horses. Vet. J. 2006;171:281–286.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.10.012pubmed: 16490710google scholar: lookup
  14. Hewetson M, Christley RM, Hunt ID, Voute LC. Investigations of the reliability of observational gait analysis for the assessment of lameness in horses. Vet. Rec. 2006;158:852–858.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.158.25.852pubmed: 16798953google scholar: lookup
  15. Starke SD, Oosterlinck M. Reliability of equine visual lameness classification as a function of expertise, lameness severity and rater confidence. Vet. Rec. 2019;184:63.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105058pubmed: 30242083google scholar: lookup
  16. Clayton HM. The Dynamic Horse; A Biomechanical Guide to Equine Movement and Performance. Sport Horse Publications; Mason, MI, USA: 2004.
  17. Van Weeren PR, Pfau T, Rhodin M, Roepstorff L, Serra Bragança F, Weishaupt MA. What is lameness and what (or who) is the gold standard to detect it?. Equine Vet. J. 2018;50:549–551.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12970pubmed: 29953639google scholar: lookup
  18. Dyson S, Greve L. Subjective gait assessment of 57 sports horses in normal work: A comparison of the response to flexion tests, movement in hand, on the lunge, and ridden. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2016;38:1–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.12.012google scholar: lookup
  19. Rhodin M, Roepstorff L, French A, Keegan KG, Pfau T, Egenvall A. Head and pelvic movement asymmetry during lungeing in horses with symmetrical movement on the straight. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:315–320.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12446pmc: PMC5032979pubmed: 25808700google scholar: lookup
  20. Logan AA, Nielsen BD, Robison CI, Hallock DB, Manfredi JM, Hiney KM, Buskirk DD, Popovich JJM. Impact of Gait and Diameter during Circular Exercise on Front Hoof Area, Vertical Force, and Pressure in Mature Horses. Animals 2021;11:3581.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11123581pmc: PMC8697886pubmed: 34944357google scholar: lookup
  21. Byström A, Hardeman A, Braganca F, Roepstorff L, Swagemakers J-H, van Weeren P, Egenvall A. Differences in equine spinal kinematics between straight line and circle in trot. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:12832.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92272-2pmc: PMC8213771pubmed: 34145339google scholar: lookup
  22. Greve L, Dyson S. What can we learn from visual and objective assessment of non-lame and lame horses in straight lines, on the lunge and ridden?. Equine Vet. Educ. 2020;32:479–491.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13016google scholar: lookup
  23. Greve L, Pfau T, Dyson SJ. Thoracolumbar movement in sound horses trotting in straight lines in hand and on the lunge and the relationship with hind limb symmetry or asymmetry. Vet. J. 2017;220:95–104.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.01.003pubmed: 28190505google scholar: lookup
  24. Hardeman A, Serra Braganca FM, Swagemakers J-H, van Weeren PR, Roepstorff L. Variation in gait parameters used for objective lameness assessment in sound horses at the trot on the straight line and the lunge. Equine Vet. J. 2019;51:831–839.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13075pmc: PMC6850282pubmed: 30648286google scholar: lookup
  25. Marunova E, Hoenecke K, Fiske-Jackson A, Smith RKW, Bolt DM, Perrier M, Gerdes C, Hernlund E, Rhodin M, Pfau T. Changes in head, withers and pelvis movement asymmetry in lame horses as a function of diagnostic anaesthesia outcome, surface and direction. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2022;118:104136.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2022.104136pubmed: 36210019google scholar: lookup
  26. Pfau T, Stubbs NC, Kaiser LJ, Brown LEA, Clayton HM. Effect of trotting speed and circle radius on movement symmetry in horses during lunging on a soft surface. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2012;73:10.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.73.12.1890pubmed: 23176414google scholar: lookup
  27. Pfau T, Jennings C, Mitchell H, Olsen E, Walker A, Egenvall A, Tröster S, Weller R, Rhodin M. Lungeing on hard and soft surfaces: Movement symmetry of trotting horses considered sound by their owners: Movement symmetry on hard and soft surfaces on the lunge. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:83–89.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12374pubmed: 25297461google scholar: lookup
  28. Ross MW. Movement. In: Ross MW., Dyson SJ., editors. Diagnosis and Management of Lameness in the Horse. 2nd ed. Elsevier; St Louis, MI, USA: 2011. pp. 64–80.
  29. Pfau T, Roepstorff L. To limp, or not to limp, is that the question?. Vet. J. 2013;195:269–270.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.01.001pubmed: 23415419google scholar: lookup
  30. McGowan CM, Stubbs NC, Jull GA. Equine physiotherapy: A comparative view of the science underlying the profession. Equine Vet. J. 2007;39:90–94.
    doi: 10.2746/042516407X163245pubmed: 17228603google scholar: lookup
  31. Physiotherapy Board of Australia, Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand. Physiotherapy Practice Thresholds in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Physiotherapy Board of Australia; Sydney, Australia: 2015. p. 37.
  32. Tabor G, Williams J. The use of outcome measures in equine rehabilitation. Vet. Nurse. 2018;9:2–5.
    doi: 10.12968/vetn.2018.9.9.497google scholar: lookup
  33. Doyle A, Horgan NF. Perceptions of animal physiotherapy amongst Irish veterinary surgeons. Ir. Vet. J. 2006;59:85–89.
    doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-59-2-85pmc: PMC3113896pubmed: 21851679google scholar: lookup
  34. World Health Organisation. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO; Geneva, Switzerland: 2002.
  35. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Man. Ther. 2006;11:46–53.
    doi: 10.1016/j.math.2005.02.003pubmed: 15886046google scholar: lookup
  36. Adair HS, Marcellin-Little DJ, Levine D. Validity and repeatability of goniometry in normal horses. Vet. Compend. Orthop. 2016;29:314–319.
    doi: 10.3415/VCOT-15-11-0182pubmed: 27124214google scholar: lookup
  37. Merrifield-Jones M, Tabor G, Williams J. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of soft tissue palpation scoring in the equine thoracic epaxial region. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;83:102812.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.102812pubmed: 31791525google scholar: lookup
  38. MacKechnie-Guire R, MacKechnie-Guire E, Fairfax V, Fisher D, Fisher M, Pfau T. The effect of tree width on thoracolumbar and limb kinematics, saddle pressure distribution, and thoracolumbar dimensions in sport horses in trot and canter. Animals 2019;9:842.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9100842pmc: PMC6827167pubmed: 31640213google scholar: lookup
  39. Pantaleon L. Why measuring outcomes is important in health care. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019;33:356–362.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15458pmc: PMC6430924pubmed: 30784125google scholar: lookup
  40. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: A report of a patient specific measure. Physiother. Can. 1995;47:258–263.
    doi: 10.3138/ptc.47.4.258google scholar: lookup
  41. . Outcome Measures Suck. [(accessed on 20 May 2023)]. Available online: https://www.thesports.physio/outcome-measures-suck/.
  42. Tabor G, Nankervis K, Fernandes J, Williams J. Generation of domains for the equine musculoskeletal rehabilitation outcome score: Development by expert consensus. Animals 2020;10:203.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020203pmc: PMC7070405pubmed: 31991716google scholar: lookup
  43. AAEP Horse Show Committee. Guide to Veterinary Services for Horse Shows. 7th ed. American Association of Equine Practitioners; Lexington, KY, USA: 1999.
  44. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J. Med. Internet Res. 2004;6:e34.
    doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34pmc: PMC1550605pubmed: 15471760google scholar: lookup
  45. Hobbs SJ, St George L, Reed J, Stockley R, Thetford C, Sinclair J, Williams J, Nankervis K, Clayton HM. A scoping review of determinants of performance in dressage. PeerJ 2020;8:e9022.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.9022pmc: PMC7185025pubmed: 32355578google scholar: lookup
  46. Lawin FJ, Byström A, Roepstorff C, Rhodin M, Almlöf M, Silva M, Andersen PH, Kjellström H, Hernlund E. Is Markerless More or Less? Comparing a Smartphone Computer Vision Method for Equine Lameness Assessment to Multi-Camera Motion Capture. Animals 2023;13:390.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13030390pmc: PMC9913208pubmed: 36766279google scholar: lookup
  47. Greve L, Pfau T, Dyson SJ. Alterations in body lean angle in lame horses before and after diagnostic analgesia in straight lines in hand and on the lunge. Vet. J. 2018;239:1–6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.07.006pubmed: 30197103google scholar: lookup
  48. Dyson S, Van Dijk J. Application of a ridden horse ethogram to video recordings of 21 horses before and after diagnostic analgesia: Reduction in behaviour scores. Equine Vet. Educ. 2020;32:104–111.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13029google scholar: lookup
  49. Dyson S, Bondi A, Routh J, Pollard D, Preston T, McConnell C, Kydd J. Do owners recognise abnormal equine behaviour when tacking-up and mounting? A comparison between responses to a questionnaire and real-time observations. Equine Vet. Educ. 2021;34:e375–e384.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13471google scholar: lookup
  50. Nocera I, Sgorbini M, Gracia-Calvo LA, Cacini M, Vitale V, Citi S. A novel dynamometer for the standardisation of the force applied during distal forelimb flexion tests in horses. Equine Vet. Educ. 2021;33:484–488.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13355google scholar: lookup
  51. Keg PR, van Weeren PR, Back W, Bameveld A. Influence of the force applied and its period of application on the outcome of the flexion test of the distal forelimb of the horse. Vet. Rec. 1997;141:463–466.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.141.18.463pubmed: 9392063google scholar: lookup
  52. Armentrout AR, Beard WL, White BJ, Lillich JD. A comparative study of proximal hindlimb flexion in horses: 5 versus 60 seconds. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:420–424.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00474.xpubmed: 21923880google scholar: lookup
  53. Starke SD, Willems E, Head M, May SA, Pfau T. Proximal hindlimb flexion in the horse: Effect on movement symmetry and implications for defining soundness. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:657–663.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00576.xpubmed: 22563757google scholar: lookup
  54. Ramey D. Forelimb Flexion Tests. Musings by Dr Ramey. 2017. [(accessed on 30 August 2023)]. Available online: https://doctorramey.com.
  55. Boström AF, Hyytiäinen HK, Koho P, Cizinauskas S, Hielm-Björkman AK. Development of the Finnish neurological function testing battery for dogs and its intra- and inter-rater reliability. Acta Vet. Scand. 2018;60:56.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-018-0408-2pmc: PMC6142623pubmed: 30223905google scholar: lookup
  56. Wright A, Amodie DM, Cernicchiaro N, Lascelles BDX, Pavlock AM, Roberts C, Bartram DJ. Identification of canine osteoarthritis using an owner-reported questionnaire and treatment monitoring using functional mobility tests. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2022;63:609–618.
    doi: 10.1111/jsap.13500pmc: PMC9543207pubmed: 35385129google scholar: lookup
  57. Barstow A, Dyson S. Clinical features and diagnosis of sacroiliac joint region pain in 296 horses: 2004–2014. Equine Vet. Educ. 2015;27:637–647.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12377google scholar: lookup
  58. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: A systematic review. Clin. Rehabil. 2006;20:756–772.
    doi: 10.1177/0269215506070793pubmed: 17005500google scholar: lookup
  59. Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: A practical guide. Clin. Rehabil. 2009;23:362–370.
    doi: 10.1177/0269215508101742pubmed: 19179355google scholar: lookup
  60. Stevens A, Beurskens A, Koke A, Weijden TTvd. The use of patient-specific measurement instruments in the process of goal-setting: A systematic review of available instruments and their feasibility. Clin. Rehabil. 2013;27:1005–1019.
    doi: 10.1177/0269215513490178pubmed: 23881336google scholar: lookup
  61. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: Perceptions and applications. Phys. Ther. 2009;89:125–135.
    doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080234pubmed: 19074618google scholar: lookup
  62. Kyte DG, Calvert M, van der Wees PJ, ten Hove R, Tolan S, Hill JC. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 2015;101:119–125.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2014.11.003pubmed: 25620440google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.