Back pain is a significant factor for horses and is challenging for professionals to diagnose, with assessment frequently using subjective tools such as manual palpation. Reliable and valid objective measures are required and use of a pressure algometer (PA) has been investigated as an assessment tool; however, it has limitations, and other more realistic methods may be better suited for the task. The aim of the study was to establish inter- and intra-rater reliability for PA, FlexiForce Sensor (FFS), and manual palpation for equine epaxial soft tissue, measuring mechanical nociception threshold responses. In group 1, 10 horses underwent three repeated tests with PA and FFS, and once for manual palpation, with three Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Animal Therapy (ACPAT) Chartered Physiotherapists in the right thoracic epaxial region. Group 2 followed the same protocol using one ACPAT Chartered Physiotherapist and 22 horses. The order of palpation was randomly applied for each test and each experimenter. Manual palpation showed excellent interrater reliability with no significant differences between scores (P = .64; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 90.0%). PA (P = .002) and FFS (P = .025) scores significantly differed between experimenters. Intrarater testing showed significant differences (P = .014) with horses increasing sensitivity over repeated PA measures. The FFS showed no significant differences (P = .347; ICC 94.7%) in repeated measures with excellent reliability and consistency. The PA showed a lack of consistency in intrarater reliability conflicting with previous research findings, whereas the FFS showed greater reliability in comparison; however, it proved difficult to use in clinical practice. Manual palpation by physiotherapists was shown to have excellent interrater reliability when using a categorical scoring system.
Keywords: FlexiForce Sensor; Horse; Manual palpation; Objective measurement; Pressure algometer.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.