ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Reliability of three scoring systems for assessing quality of anaesthetic induction in 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral induction quality scoring systems (IQSS) have been described to evaluate drugs and risk factors of this anaesthetic period in horses, but no attempts to compare their reliability have been performed.
objectivesTo elucidate the reliability of three IQSS: the visual analogue scale (VAS), a simple descriptive scale (SDS), and a composite grading scale (CGS) proposed by the authors. STUDY
designReliability study.
methodsEight randomly selected video-recorded anaesthetic inductions from horses that underwent general anaesthesia were evaluated twice by four blinded evaluators with experience in equine anaesthesia, with a 1-month interval between assessments using the three aforementioned IQSS. A total of 64 evaluations per scale were generated. To assess reliability, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on a mean rating (k = 4), absolute agreement, 2-way random-effects model.
resultsThe inter-rater agreement was classified as moderate to good inter-rater reliability for all the scales, with the highest ICC found for the VAS (0.74 ± 0.11), followed by the CGS and the SDS (0.65 ± 0.22 and 0.63 ± 0.21, respectively). Intra-rater agreement results demonstrated very good reliability for both VAS and SDS (0.82 ± 0.08; 0.81 ± 0.18, respectively) and excellent reliability for the CGS (0.91 ± 0.08). MAIN LIMITATIONS: The use of video-recordings instead of in situ evaluations, as the absence of audio may affect the assessment. Additionally, these findings are applicable only when free inductions are evaluated.
conclusionsThe VAS and the novel CGS are reliable IQSS in horses, as are the widely used SDS. As the SDS are inconsistent across the literature, the VAS would be advised if multiple evaluators assess induction quality for research purposes, whereas the CGS would be selected for studies involving a single observer. We suggest routine inclusion of the VAS in the evaluation of the anaesthetic induction in horses.
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.