Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28187763›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2017

The method of attachment influences accelerometer-based activity data in dogs.

Kyle W Martin, Anastasia M Olsen, Colleen G Duncan, Felix M Duerr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The beneficial role of companion animals in translational pain research.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle W MartinDepartment of Clinical Sciences, James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, 300 W Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA.
Anastasia M OlsenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, 625 Harrison Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.
Colleen G DuncanDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, 300 W Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA.
Felix M DuerrDepartment of Clinical Sciences, James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, 300 W Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA. felix.duerr@colostate.edu.
Colorado State University · USPurdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccelerometer-based activity monitoring is a promising new tool in veterinary medicine used to objectively assess activity levels in dogs. To date, it is unknown how device orientation, attachment method, and attachment of a leash to the collar holding an accelerometer affect canine activity data. It was our goal to evaluate whether attachment methods of accelerometers affect activity counts. Eight healthy, client-owned dogs were fitted with two identical neck collars to which two identical activity monitors were attached using six different methods of attachment. These methods of attachment evaluated the use of a protective case, positioning of the activity monitor and the tightness of attachment of the accelerometer. Lastly, the effect of leash attachment to the collar was evaluated. For trials where the effect of leash attachment to the collar was not being studied, the leash was attached to a harness. Activity data obtained from separate monitors within a given experiment were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients and across all experiments using the Kruskal-Wallis Test.

resultsThere was excellent correlation and low variability between activity monitors on separate collars when the leash was attached to a harness, regardless of their relative positions. There was good correlation when activity monitors were placed on the same collar regardless of orientation. There were poor correlations between activity monitors in three experiments: when the leash was fastened to the collar that held an activity monitor, when one activity monitor was housed in the protective casing, and when one activity monitor was loosely zip-tied to the collar rather than threaded on using the provided metal loop. Follow-up, pair-wise comparisons identified the correlation associated with these three methods of attachment to be statistically different from the level of correlation when monitors were placed on separate collars.

conclusionsWhile accelerometer-based activity monitors are useful tools to objectively assess physical activity in dogs, care must be taken when choosing a method to attach the device. The attachment of the activity monitor to the collar should utilize a second, dedicated collar that is not used for leash attachment and the attachment method should remain consistent throughout a study period.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAnimalsDogsMonitoring, PhysiologicMotor ActivityReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID28187763
PMCPMC5303220
OpenAlexW2586648364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.