ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Comparison of Rectal and Intraoperative Findings in Horses with Colic.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per rectum examination (PRE) is commonly used in the triage of horses with acute abdominal pain, despite reports of associated risk factors for both horses and personnel, but its diagnostic accuracy is questionable. This multicenter, observational study aimed to evaluate the agreement between PRE findings and surgical findings obtained via exploratory laparotomy in horses with colic. A total of 201 cases from four equine referral hospitals across Europe were included. Rectal findings were categorized as primary (most likely cause of colic) or additional. Agreement with surgical findings was assessed using kappa statistics. The influence of examiner demographic data (age, gender, and qualification status) on diagnostic accuracy was also evaluated. The agreement between primary rectal and primary surgical diagnosis was 57.2% (115/201; kappa coefficient, 0.490; 95% confidence interval, 0.394-0.586). When both primary and additional findings were considered, agreement increased to 71.6% (144/201, kappa coefficient, 0.720; 95% confidence interval, 0.156-0.927; 65.1-77.4%). The highest agreement was seen in cases of gas-distended large colon (90.3%), small intestinal distension (75.8%), and left dorsal displacement of the large colon (66.7%). Detection of small intestine distension in PRE had the highest sensitivity (85.7%) and negative predictive value (92.8%) among the evaluated parameters. Examiner demographics had no significant impact on diagnostic accuracy. PRE is a valuable but imperfect diagnostic tool. Given the dynamic nature of colic and possible changes between examination and surgery, some discrepancies are expected. Other variables, such as horse size or the examiner's hand dominance, were not investigated in this study but may have had an impact on the observed outcomes. Overall, PRE remains a practical, accessible technique that provides clinically useful information regardless of examiner experience.
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.