ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
A Meta-Analysis on Quantitative Sodium, Potassium and Chloride Metabolism in Horses and Ponies.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post exercise hydration responses to an electrolyte, glycerol, and creatine supplement in horses: a preliminary study.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this meta-analysis was to (i) identify any potential differences in the apparent and true digestibility, renal excretion, and retention between ponies and horses and (ii) examine the impact of work on these parameters. Additionally, the study aimed to (iii) evaluate the effects of water deficiency. This meta-analysis used data from 33 studies and plotted them in diagrams similar to the Lucas test against mineral intake. Three studies involved ponies that were later diagnosed with pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction (PPID). These were compared with other data to identify quantitative differences, as they may have clinical significance. If any significant difference was observed, the data were not used for the evaluation of the aforementioned goals. Data were compared within certain intake ranges using
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.