ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Welfare assessment of racehorses provides a baseline for continued monitoring.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal welfare assessment in French jump racehorses during season preparation.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Industry Perceptions of Thoroughbred Racehorse Emotions and Quality of Life: Implications for the Development of an Equine Quality of Life Assessment Tool.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Welfare assessment of racehorses provides a baseline for continued monitoring.Equine veterinary journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRacehorse welfare continues to be a focus of stakeholders both within and outside of the industry, and there is a need for evidence-based animal welfare data.
objectivesTo gather data on racehorse welfare through a combination of animal-based observations and information about management practices, and to ascertain the feasibility of trained industry assessors carrying out a racehorse welfare assessment. STUDY
designCross-sectional.
methodsSixteen trained industry assessors conducted individual observations of 737 racehorses in 21 Flat racing (F), 27 National Hunt (NH) and 26 Dual-purpose (D) training yards in Great Britain (GB). The welfare assessment protocol, including management and animal-based welfare measures, was carried out on up to 10 horses in each yard.
resultsHorses were generally in good physical health, although external mouth corner lesions were reported in 18% of horses, with significant variation between yards (p ≤ 0.001). Forage was present in the stable of 86% of horses during the assessment. Daily turnout was available to 27% of all horses, and 55% of horses were reported to be turned out at least weekly. Of the horses that were turned out, 36% were done so in pairs or groups, and 75% were turned out on grass. In total, 47% of all horses had physical social contact when stabled, with 1% being housed in pairs, but 7% of horses had no visual or physical contact when stabled. In total, 7% of horses performed stereotypic behaviour during the individual welfare assessment. The majority of horses (69%-76%) reacted positively to three human reactivity tests. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Welfare measures used were constrained by the assessment being carried out on racehorses in an active training and racing schedule. Time available to the assessors was also a limiting factor.
conclusionsThis welfare assessment of racehorses in training in GB proved feasible to conduct and provided large-scale data to monitor welfare and highlight areas for targeted welfare improvement strategies. Depending on the ultimate objectives, various implementation options for continued welfare assessments of racehorses are available, working in partnership with trainers and other industry stakeholders.
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.