Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38560629›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

A validation study to analyze the reliability of center of pressure data in static posturography in dogs.

Masoud Aghapour, Nadja Affenzeller, Christiane Lutonsky, Christian Peham, Alexander Tichy, Barbara Bockstahler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Automatic gait analysis in canines using computer vision.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masoud Aghapour *Section of Physical Therapy, Small Animal Surgery, Department for Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Nadja Affenzeller *Section of Physical Therapy, Small Animal Surgery, Department for Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Christiane LutonskySection of Physical Therapy, Small Animal Surgery, Department for Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Christian PehamMovement Science Group, Equine Surgery, Department for Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander TichyPlatform Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, Department for Biomedical Services, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Barbara BockstahlerSection of Physical Therapy, Small Animal Surgery, Department for Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Center of pressure (COP) parameters are frequently assessed to analyze movement disorders in humans and animals. Methodological discrepancies are a major concern when evaluating conflicting study results. This study aimed to assess the inter-observer reliability and test-retest reliability of body COP parameters including mediolateral and craniocaudal sway, total length, average speed and support surface in healthy dogs during quiet standing on a pressure plate. Additionally, it sought to determine the minimum number of trials and the shortest duration necessary for accurate COP assessment. Materials and methods: Twelve clinically healthy dogs underwent three repeated trials, which were analyzed by three independent observers to evaluate inter-observer reliability. Test-retest reliability was assessed across the three trials per dog, each lasting 20 seconds (s). Selected 20 s measurements were analyzed in six different ways: 1 × 20 s, 1 × 15 s, 2 × 10 s, 4 × 5 s, 10 × 2 s, and 20 × 1 s. Results: Results demonstrated excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC ≥ 0.93) for all COP parameters. However, only 5 s, 10 s, and 15 s measurements achieved the reliability threshold (ICC ≥ 0.60) for all evaluated parameters. Discussion: The shortest repeatable durations were obtained from either two 5 s measurements or a single 10 s measurement. Most importantly, statistically significant differences were observed between the different measurement durations, which underlines the need to standardize measurement times in COP analysis. The results of this study aid scientists in implementing standardized methods, thereby easing comparisons across studies and enhancing the reliability and validity of research findings in veterinary medicine.

Indexed as

COPdoggait analysisground reaction forcesinter-observer reliabilitykineticstest-retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID38560629
PMCPMC10979645
OpenAlexW4392816245

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.