ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Equine veterinarians' care priorities regarding vaccination, colic, lameness and pre-purchase scenarios.
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 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.
- Equine veterinarians' care priorities regarding vaccination, colic, lameness and pre-purchase scenarios.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEquine veterinarians play a crucial role in maintaining equine health and ensuring client satisfaction. Understanding their perspectives on key aspects of veterinary care is essential for optimising outcomes for both clients and horses.
objectivesTo identify and compare the importance equine veterinarians place on seven key aspects of client satisfaction in equine veterinary practice (quality of care, quality of service, horsemanship, interpersonal skills, transfer of knowledge, financial aspects and professionalism) across four different scenarios. STUDY
designA cross-sectional survey-based study.
methodsA total of 246 equine veterinarians participated in the online survey, which included ranking the seven aspects of equine veterinary care across four scenarios. The data were analysed using Friedman tests to assess differences within and across scenarios, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine differences between groups of veterinarians.
resultsQuality of care was ranked most important in the colic (median rank: 1, interquartile range [IQR]: 1-2) and lameness (median rank: 1, IQR: 1-2) scenarios (p < 0.001), reflecting the critical nature of these conditions. Quality of service showed no differences in ranking across the scenarios. Professionalism was ranked significantly more important in the pre-purchase scenario (median rank: 2, IQR: 1-3) compared to other scenarios (p < 0.001). Financial aspects were consistently ranked least important (median rank: 7, IQR: 6-7, p < 0.001). No differences in ranking were found between different groups of veterinarians. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Participants may not accurately represent the diversity and characteristics of the entire equine veterinary population. The scenarios do not fully encompass the diversity of equine veterinary practice.
conclusionsEquine veterinarians prioritise quality of care, quality of service and professionalism in their practice, with some variations depending on the clinical scenario. Financial aspects were consistently given the lowest priority.
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.