ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Interobserver variability of assessing body condition scores and muscle condition scores in a population of 43 active working explosive detection dogs.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated effects of dietary supplementation of Spirulina platensis in working dogs: nutritional, biochemical, antioxidant, immunological, gut-related microbial and nutrigenomic insights.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- CT-based optimization of hindlimb muscle measurement levels and development of a hindlimb muscle condition score in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Assessment of Body Condition in Long-Distance Sled Dogs: Validation of the Body Condition Score and Its Association with Ultrasonographic, Plicometric, and Anthropometric Measurements.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Intra- and inter-observer reliability of girth measurements of the neck, chest, and abdomen in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Characteristics, Nutritional Recommendations, and Medical Interventions of 58 Dogs With Protein-Losing Enteropathy Presenting to a Veterinary Nutrition Service.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between explosive detection dog (EDD) handlers and a team of veterinarians in assessing body condition score (BCS) and muscle condition score (MCS), hypothesizing significant BCS differences between handlers and veterinarians, and no significant MCS differences in healthy active duty EDDs. Methods: This prospective study analyzed variance and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of agreement within BCS and MCS assessments collected from the 43 EDDs by four blinded graders; the EDDs' respective handler and three veterinarians with varying levels of veterinary expertise. Results: The results of the study showed that 74.4% of the EDD population was graded as ideal BCS (4 or 5 out of 9) by the handlers compared to 67.44% by the members of the veterinary team; however, the graders scored different subsets of individual EDDs as ideal. Normal MCS (3 out of 3) was assessed in 86.05% ( Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of standardized training and guidelines for BCS and MCS assessments in working dogs to improve agreement between all members of the healthcare team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.