Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40574279›Full record

ArticleEquine veterinary journal2025

Measurements of equine foot parameters show limited agreement between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging.

Constance Bowkett-Pritchard, David M Bolt, Yu-Mei Chang, Dagmar Berner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Constance Bowkett-PritchardEquine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8612-1203
David M BoltEquine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0900-5022
Yu-Mei ChangDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Dagmar BernerEquine Referral Hospital, Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6442-3449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEquine foot radiographs are commonly obtained to measure anatomical conformation parameters. Comparison of measurements between radiographs and low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been extensively explored.

objectivesTo compare foot parameter measurements between radiographs and low-field MRI, and assess the effect of hoof wall markers on visualising the hoof capsule (during MRI) and facilitating measurements. STUDY

designComparative cadaveric analytical study.

methodsRadiography and MRI of nine equine cadaver front feet were performed with and without hoof wall markers, which were lead strips for radiography and a water-soaked hoof bandage for MRI. Intra-observer reliability and inter-modality agreement were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p < 0.05.

resultsIntra-observer repeatability was generally good, apart from distal dermal frontal measurements. There was limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements. Results are presented as RAD indicating those obtained with radiography and T1, T2* or STIR indicating those obtained with the relevant MRI sequence; m is added if a marker was used. Founder distance only showed good agreement for radiographic and T1 measurements with markers; ICC 0.78 (CI 0.33-0.95 p = 0.004). Inter-modality comparisons for distal phalanx rotation were limited by intraobserver repeatability. Good agreement was noted for sole thickness and epidermal sole thickness measurements with markers; sole thickness (RADm vs. T1m ICC 0.81 [CI -0.04-0.96], p < 0.001; RADm vs. T2*m ICC 0.86 [CI 0.51-0.97], p < 0.001; RADm vs. STIRm ICC 0.91 [CI 0.66-0.98], p < 0.001) and epidermal sole thickness (RADm vs. T1m ICC 0.88 [CI 0.55-0.97], p < 0.001; RADm vs. T2*m ICC 0.83 [CI 0.41-0.96], p = 0.002; RADm vs. STIRm ICC 0.80 [CI 0.31-0.95], p = 0.004). Radiographic measurements with and without markers often had good to excellent agreement; for some parameters, hoof wall markers were associated with reduced intra-observer repeatability. The water-soaked hoof bandage aided MRI hoof capsule visualisation; limitations included reduced repeatability and unattainable distal measurements. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Small sample size.

conclusionsThe limited agreement between radiographic and MRI measurements suggests these modalities are not interchangeable in equine foot assessment. Hoof wall markers do not benefit foot measurements.

Indexed as

FootHoof and ClawMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyAnimalsCadaverHorsesReproducibility of ResultshoofhorseMRIradiography

Identifiers

PMID40574279
PMCPMC12326914

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.