ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Evaluation of the inter-examiner reliability of myofascial trigger point identification in dogs.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) are a source of chronic pain in humans, but their diagnosis relies on subjective manual palpation. MTrP distribution has been described in dogs, but reliability between examiners remains unknown. This prospective, blinded, clinical investigation aimed to determine the inter-examiner reliability of MTrP identification in the hindlimb musculature of dogs and to describe their distribution. Methods: Twenty-four geriatric and retired sled dogs were assessed for MTrPs in four hindlimb muscle groups (gluteals, cranial thigh, hamstrings, and medial thigh) by two veterinarians in random order. MTrP identification was based on previous methodology defining an MTrP as a distinct, hyperactive point or nodule eliciting a pain response, known as a jump sign. Examiners were blinded to each other's findings by marking MTrPs with invisible UV ink pens. Agreement on MTrP presence or absence in a muscle group, distance between examiners' points, and the number of MTrPs per muscle group were recorded. Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Results: In total, 380 MTrPs were identified by the two examiners across the 188 muscle groups assessed. Examiners demonstrated 81.4% agreement on MTrP presence or absence in a muscle group with a Cohen's kappa of 0.608 (95% CI: 0.491-0.724), indicating moderate to substantial inter-examiner reliability. However, the mean distance between examiners' markings for individual MTrPs was 10.6 ± 5.1 mm, suggesting a potential substantial lack of precision. The cranial thigh group contained the most MTrPs. Additionally, the more experienced examiner identified a greater number of MTrPs overall ( Discussion: This study provides the first assessment of inter-examiner reliability for MTrP identification in dogs. While examiners agreed on the general presence or absence of myofascial sensitivity within a muscle group, precise localization was unreliable. This lack of precision may be influenced by a number of factors, namely skin movement and the subjective nature of the assessment itself. This study highlights the need for further research and objective diagnostic tools for reliable, targeted MTrP identification.
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.