ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022
Review of the Foundational Knowledge Required for Assessing Horse Welfare.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Five Domains, Multiple Realities: A Multidimensional Analysis of Equine Welfare in Equestrian Events in Brazil.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Opportunities for agency in domestic horses: Applying the behavioural domain to increase equine welfare.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Review
- Rider education at Swedish riding schools: Comparing teachers' and pupils' perspectives.PloS one · 2026Article
- RNA-seq analysis identifies key genes enhancing hoof strength to withstand barefoot racing in Standardbred trotters.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Rethinking the utility of the Five Domains model.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A detailed understanding of what is usual for a species under optimal conditions is critical for identifying and interpreting different features of body function that have known impacts on animal welfare and its assessment. When applying the Five Domains Model to assess animal welfare, the key starting point is therefore to acquire extensive species-specific knowledge relevant to each of the four physical/functional Domains of the Model. These Domains, 1 to 4, address areas where objective information is evaluated and collated. They are: (1) Nutrition; (2) Physical environment; (3) Health; and (4) Behavioural interactions. It is on the basis of this detailed knowledge that cautious inferences can then be made about welfare-relevant mental experiences animals may have, aligned with Domain 5, Mental State. However, this review is focused entirely on the first four Domains in order to provide a novel holistic framework to collate the multidisciplinary knowledge of horses required for undertaking comprehensive welfare assessments. Thus, inferring the potential mental experiences aligned with Domain 5, the final step in model-based welfare assessments, is not considered here. Finally, providing extensive information on free-roaming horses enables a better understanding of the impacts of human interventions on the welfare of horses in both free-roaming and domestic situations.
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.