ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Does the Distance Between Ground Poles Affect Limb, Spinal and Pelvic Kinematics in Horses When Walking In-Hand?
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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
Polework exercise is commonly used in equine training and rehabilitation; however, the influence of pole spacing on locomotor kinematics remains unclear. This study investigated the effects of pole spacing on limb, thoracolumbar and pelvic kinematics in horses walking in-hand. Eleven warmblood horses were assessed during overground walking and over five ground poles set at 85%, 100% and 105% of forelimb step length. Pole spacing did not significantly alter maximum fore- or hindlimb retraction; however, protraction-retraction range of motion (ROM) was reduced at 85% spacing. Forelimb ROM was reduced by 6.5% compared with 100% spacing and by 8.7% compared with 105% spacing, while hindlimb ROM was reduced by 2.9%. Hindlimb protraction was reduced at 85% compared with 100% and 105% spacing (
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.