Clinical validity of outcome pain measures in naturally occurring canine osteoarthritis

Rialland, Pascale; Bichot, Sylvain; Moreau, Maxim; Guillot, Martin; Lussier, Bertrand; Gauvin, Dominique; Martel‐Pelletier, Johanne; Pelletier, Jean‐Pierre; Troncy, Éric

doi:10.1186/1746-6148-8-162

Cited by 47 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, no standardized canine trotting velocity range is available. More than ten unique trotting velocity ranges, narrow and wide, have been used in veterinary trials to-date (Rumph et al, 1993; Borer et al, 2003; Ballagas et al, 2004; Lopez et al, 2006; Havig et al, 2007; Voss et al, 2008; Malek et al, 2012; Rialland et al, 2012; Brown et al, 2013; Fahie et al, 2013). The variance effects of these velocity ranges on GRF in a heterogeneous population have not been investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variance associated with subject velocity and trial repetition during force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs

Hans

Zwarthoed

Seliski

et al. 2014

The Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors that contribute to variance in ground reaction forces (GRF) include: dog morphology, velocity, and trial repetition. Narrow velocity ranges are recommended to minimize variance. In a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs, we hypothesized that the dog subject effect would account for the majority of variance in peak vertical force (PVF) and vertical impulse (VI) at a trotting gait, and that narrow velocity ranges would be associated with less variance. Data from twenty normal dogs were obtained. Each dog was trotted across a force platform at its habitual velocity, with controlled acceleration (±0.5m/s2). Variance effects from twelve trotting velocity ranges were examined using repeated-measures analysis-of-covariance. Significance was set at P<0.05. Mean dog body weight was 28.4 ± 7.4 kg. Individual dog and velocity significantly affected PVF and VI for thoracic and pelvic limbs (P<0.001). Trial number significantly affected thoracic limb PVF (P<0.001). Limb (left or right) significantly affected thoracic limb VI (P=0.02). The magnitude of variance effects from largest to smallest was dog, velocity, trial repetition, and limb. Velocity ranges of 1.5–2.0 m/s, 1.8–2.2 m/s, and 1.9–2.2 m/s were associated with low variance and no significant effects on thoracic or pelvic limb PVF and VI. A combination of these ranges, 1.5–2.2 m/s, captured a large percentage of trials per dog (84.2±21.4%) with no significant effects on thoracic or pelvic limb PVF or VI. We conclude wider velocity ranges facilitate capture of valid trials with little to no effect on GRF in normal trotting dogs. This concept is important for clinical trial design.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variance associated with subject velocity and trial repetition during force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs

Hans

Zwarthoed

Seliski

et al. 2014

The Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dogs with OA may show clinical signs of limping, stiffness of joints, immobility, crepitus, periarticular swelling, and lameness. Pain associated with inflammation appears to be the most serious sign of OA [3,[11][12][13][14][15][16]30]. As stated in the introduction, pathophysiology of OA is very complex due to involvement of multiple factors [18,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, more than 20% of the adult and 80% of the geriatric dog population in the US (>80 million) suffer from OA [3]. A number of factors (injury/trauma, aging, excessive or lack of exercise, genetic predisposition, poor nutrition, obesity, and environmental factors) can contribute to OA in dogs [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Often, large breed dogs (German Shepherds, Labrador Retrievers, Siberian Huskies, Rottweilers, and others) are prone to develop OA (>45%) as compared to smaller breeds [9,10]. Common clinical signs of OA include limping, immobility, stiffness of joints, crepitus, periarticular swelling, and pain upon manipulation of the joint and lameness [3,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Terminalia chebula Extract for Anti-Arthritic Efficacy and Safety in Osteoarthritic Dogs

Murdock¹,

Vega³

et al. 2015

J Veterinar Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation was undertaken to assess anti-inflammatory and anti-arthritic efficacy and safety of T. chebula extract (TCE) in moderately osteoarthritic (OA) dogs. Dogs with OA received either 500 mg placebo or 500 mg TCE twice daily for 150 days. On a monthly basis, dogs were given a full physical exam and were evaluated for arthritic pain (overall pain, pain upon limb manipulation, and pain after physical exertion), inflammation (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ESR), and analysis of complete blood count (CBC) and serum biomarkers of liver (bilirubin, ALT, and AST), kidney (BUN and creatinine), and heart and skeletal muscle (CK) functions. Elbow and stifle joints were radiographed on day 0 and day 150 for evaluation of arthritic progression. Dogs given TCE showed significant (P<0.01) reductions in overall pain, pain upon limb manipulation, and pain after physical exertion by day 90, with maximum effects on day 150 (81.2%, 81.5%, and 84.2%, respectively). A marked reduction in ESR coincided with pain reduction in TCE-treated dogs, which was indicative of anti-inflammatory effect of TCE. Radiographic evidence also indicated slowed progression of OA in joints examined. No significant change occurred in physical parameters, CBC parameters, or serum biomarkers in dogs on placebo or treatment, which suggested that TCE was well tolerated. It can be concluded that TCE, by having many active principles (chebulagic acid, chebulinic acid, corilagin, hydrolysable tannoids, etc.) might have provided antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-arthritic effects in dogs without causing any side effects.

show abstract

“…While it has been suggested that accelerometers are measuring a different outcome that may not be related to established outcomes (Rialland et al, 2012), weak correlations may also be caused by variability in data collection. Specifically, inter-device variability and collar tightness may affect activity counts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Accelerometer Inter-Device Variability and Collar Placement in Dogs

Olsen

Evans

Duerr

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare accelerometer inter-device variability and evaluate the effect of canine collar tightness on activity counts.Evidentiary value: This is a prospective study of six dogs each wearing Actical accelerometers over 24 hours with variable placement to evaluate accelerometer inter-device variability and collar tightness. Methods:Six skeletally mature medium to large breed client-owned dogs were enrolled in the study. Twelve identical accelerometer devices were used, with the same two devices used for each dog. All accelerometers were placed on the ventral cervical region. A total of four placement patterns (P1: two accelerometers on the same collar; P2: two separate collars with same tightness with one accelerometer on each collar; P3 & P4: one collar loose/one collar tight and one accelerometer on each collar) were evaluated. Pearson's correlation, paired t-tests, and percent of variation between total activity counts for each placement period were calculated.Results: For P1-P4, Pearson's correlation was 0.92, 0.95, 0.93, and 0.86 (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). For P1-P4, t-ratio was -20.59 (p<0.0001), 9.78 (p<0.0001), -8.95 (p<0.0001), and -2.15 (p<0.0313), respectively. When evaluating inter-device variability, the percent differences between total activity counts of device pairs ranged from 2.5 to 56.8%. Conclusion:While the correlations between devices for all placements were high, the high inter-device variability shows that further investigation is necessary. From this study, the results suggest that changing devices throughout a study should be avoided. We recommend that attachment of the accelerometers to the collar, including collar tightness, should be kept consistent until further studies are available.Application: When accelerometer data are used for objective outcomes, accelerometer inter-device variability and collar tightness should be taken into account.

show abstract

Clinical validity of outcome pain measures in naturally occurring canine osteoarthritis

Cited by 47 publications

References 43 publications

Variance associated with subject velocity and trial repetition during force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs

Variance associated with subject velocity and trial repetition during force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs

Evaluation of Terminalia chebula Extract for Anti-Arthritic Efficacy and Safety in Osteoarthritic Dogs

Evaluation of Accelerometer Inter-Device Variability and Collar Placement in Dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About