ArticlePeerJ2020
Description of soft tissue artifacts and related consequences on hindlimb kinematics during canine gait.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSoft tissue artifacts (STAs) are a source of error in marker-based gait analysis in dogs. While some studies have revealed the existence of STAs in the canine hindlimb, STAs and their influence on kinematic gait analysis remain unclear.
methodsThirteen healthy Taiwan dogs affixed with twenty skin markers on the thigh and crus were recruited. Soft tissue artifacts and their influence on the determination of segment poses and stifle angles were assessed by simultaneously measuring marker trajectories and kinematics of the underlying bones via a model-based fluoroscopic analysis method.
resultsMarkers on the thigh showed higher STAs than those on the crus, with root-mean-square amplitudes up to 15.5 mm. None of the tested marker clusters were able to accurately reproduce the skeletal poses, in which the maximum root-mean-square deviations ranged from 3.4° to 8.1°. The use of markers resulted in overestimated stifle flexion during 40-60% of the gait cycle and underestimated stifle flexion during 80-90% of the gait cycle.
conclusionsConsiderable magnitudes and effects of STAs on the marker-based 3D gait analysis of dogs were demonstrated. The results indicate that the development of error-compensation techniques based on knowledge regarding STAs is warranted for more accurate gait analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.