ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026
Validation of an improved insect bite hypersensitivity severity score for allergic equine insect bite hypersensitivity in horses.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInsect bite hypersensitivity (IBH) is the most common allergic skin disease in horses, but existing clinical scoring systems lack extensive validation, limiting standardized disease monitoring and therapeutic evaluation. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesDevelop and validate a standardized, sensitive, and reproducible clinical scoring system for IBH in horses. ANIMALS: Forty-four privately-owned horses with clinically diagnosed IBH examined under field conditions in Switzerland.
methodsIn this prospective field validation study, the equine IBH severity score (EqIS) integrates a lesion severity score and an area score using a multiplicative algorithm. Six trained evaluators assessed horses independently. Primary outcomes were intra- and interobserver reliability of the lesion severity score and EqIS assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Secondary analyses included agreement of the area score (Pearson correlation), correlations between owner-reported visual analog scale (VAS) scores and EqIS, and comparison between EqIS and a simplified EqIS developed for field use.
resultsIntraobserver reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.995 for the lesion severity score and 0.989 for EqIS), and interobserver reliability was similarly high (ICC = 0.98 for both). The area score showed strong interobserver agreement (Pearson r = 0.86-0.94). Owner VAS scores correlated moderately with EqIS (ρ = 0.49-0.51) and strongly with each other (ρ = 0.88). The simplified EqIS demonstrated strong agreement with the validated version (R2 = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The EqIS is the first extensively validated IBH-specific scoring system and demonstrates excellent reproducibility across evaluators. It provides an objective tool for standardized disease assessment and therapeutic monitoring, whereas the simplified EqIS offers a practical alternative for routine field use.
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.