ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Efficacy and welfare effects of different forms of physical restraint for upper airway endoscopy of horses.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical restraint of horses for veterinary procedures is necessary to allow completion of tasks effectively and without injury to patient or personnel.
objectivesTo compare physiological effects and behavioural responses to four commonly used restraint techniques for upper respiratory tract (URT) endoscopy in unsedated horses. STUDY
designBlocked and randomised interventional study.
methodsTwelve university owned teaching horses were blocked into groups of four and randomly allocated to one of four restraint methods (nose twitch, ear hold, Stableizer® and nil restraint) for URT endoscopy. Horse response to restraint and endoscopy was evaluated subjectively and by objective measures of procedural efficacy (duration and head movement), time domain indices of heart rate variability (HRV), saliva cortisol and plasma β-endorphin concentrations.
resultsHorses demonstrated strong individual differences for procedure tolerance and preferred method of restraint, but there were no differences observed in outcome measures related to procedural efficacy or neuroendocrine response associated with restraint type. Repetition of experimental procedures was associated with a progressive decrease in mean (95% CI) minimum heart rate from 34.2 (31.7-36.7) to 30.1 (28.0-32.2) bpm (p < 0.001), and increased HRV measures related to parasympathetic dominance. Cortisol was greatest on Day 2 (1.5, 1.1-2.5 nmol/L; median, 95% CI), compared with Day 1 (0.8, 0.5-1.6 nmol/L; p = 0.02). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Convenience sample of horses familiar with most study interventions; intervention was minimally invasive and of short duration.
conclusionsStudy findings did not support current recommendations to prioritise one type of restraint over other available techniques.
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.