Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600354›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024

Equipment-related wounds and associated risk factors in working equids of the Oromia national regional state in Ethiopia.

Mathilde S Merridale-Punter, Abel L Wodajo, Belay Elias, Anna-Marie Bakos, Hanna Zewdu, Reta Tesfaye, Gizachew Hailegebreal, Teshale Sori, Charles M El-Hage, Anke K Wiethoelter and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Mathilde S Merridale-PunterMelbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-4937
Abel L WodajoCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8073-3201
Belay EliasCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Anna-Marie BakosMelbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Hanna ZewduCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Reta TesfayeCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Gizachew HailegebrealFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, PO Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5202-7561
Teshale SoriCollege of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Charles M El-HageMelbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6999-2664
Anke K WiethoelterMelbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7872-934X
Peta L HitchensEquine Centre, Melbourne Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Hwy, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-7056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working equids support the livelihoods of millions of low-income households worldwide and face several welfare challenges. Although equipment-related wounds are common, little is known about specific risk factors. This cross-sectional study surveyed equids used for cart-work in three Ethiopian towns. Number, size, severity and location of wounds were recorded for each animal, as well as work equipment characteristics and indicators of equipment fit and assembly. Questionnaires were conducted with each cart-driver focusing on equipment practices and attitudes. Logistic regression models were generated to investigate associations between equipment-related wounds (outcome) and equipment, work, driver and animal-related factors (predictors). In total, 369 equids and cart-drivers were surveyed. The prevalence of equipment-related wounds was 72.6% (268/369) with girth wounds being the predominant wound type in horses (50%; 122/244) while donkeys had predominantly shaft-related wounds (59%; 72/122). Donkeys were two times more likely to have equipment-related wounds than horses. The presence of equipment-related wounds was associated with factors such as previously having wounds, inadequate collar positioning and using purchased equipment compared to partly home-made equipment. Characteristics of specific equipment components were also associated with certain wound types, such as narrow saddle pressure points and saddle wounds. Equipment-related wounds are highly prevalent in working equids, representing a serious welfare concern. Factors relating to equipment design, fit and assembly were associated with the presence of wounds. Importantly, species differences require tailoring of preventive approaches amongst working equids. A better understanding of work equipment should therefore be promoted as part of wound prevention and animal welfare strategies.

Indexed as

animal welfarecross-sectionaldonkeysequipment-related woundsharnesshorses

Identifiers

PMID39600354
PMCPMC11589070

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.