ArticleHeliyon2024
Kinematics and kinetics of dogs walking over increasing heights of cavaletti exercise.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of four heights of cavaletti exercise on canine kinematics and kinetics. Eight dogs had kinematics and kinetics data collected whilst completing cavaletti pole exercises at four different heights (floor, mid-metatarsal, hock, and stifle). Dogs had anatomical markers placed on bony landmarks of the fore and hindlimb joints. Each trial was recorded via a high-speed camera and two pressure mats. Kinematics outcomes were joint range of motion (ROM). Kinetic outcomes were force (%BW), impulse and peak pressure. Friedman and Wilcoxon's tests were performed to identify significant differences between cavaletti heights. A statistically significant increase was found at hock height placement across all joints whilst maintaining kinetic parameters similar to floor height. No significant differences were found for hip range of motion at any pole height. It was found that stifle height showed no increase in joint range of motion but has the highest forces involved. This determines that hock height is the most beneficial height for improving joint range of motion whilst not increasing forces upon the limbs. Stifle height should be avoided, in some conditions, due to high peak pressures, which do not necessarily lead to a significant further increase in range of motion.
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.