ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Measuring the Rider-Horse Dyad Across Olympic Equestrian Disciplines: A Scoping Review of Methodological Gaps and Priorities for Show Jumping.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Rider-horse coordination underpins equestrian performance; yet, its definition, quantitative indicators, and measurement methods remain inconsistent across Olympic disciplines. This scoping review mapped the constructs, metrics, and measurement approaches in dressage, show jumping, eventing, and transferable equestrian contexts, with show jumping as the principal application context. (2) Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidance and a Population-Concept-Context framework, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and PubMed were searched from database inception to 10 September 2026. Evidence was charted by discipline, measurement domain, measurement configuration, and synchronisation status. (3) Results: A total of 121 evidence sources were included. Among 108 empirical or methodological studies, 47 were kinematic/biomechanical, 23 performance/statistical, 15 behavioural/welfare-related, 13 kinetic/pressure/interface, and 10 neuromuscular/physiological. Only 12 used synchronised rider-horse time-series or event-based measurements, and none of the show-jumping studies met the strict synchronisation criterion. Coordination was commonly inferred from single-partner signals, interface measures, or aggregate performance outcomes. (4) Conclusions: The key limitation is not sensor availability, but the lack of validated dyadic methods. Future show-jumping studies should use common time bases, predefined biomechanical events, paired variables, and prospective validation, while integrating behavioural and clinical evidence when interpreting welfare-related outcomes.
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.