Skip to main content

Table 2 Occurrence of end point detection during thermal stimulation

From: Evaluation of contact heat thermal threshold testing for standardized assessment of cutaneous nociception in horses - comparison of different locations and environmental conditions

Place Temperature Success rate [%] Nostril Withers Coronary band
    (n = 30) (n = 30) (n = 30)
Box Warm ambient temperatures Failure 6.66a 3.34a 40.0b
Success 93.4a 96.6a 60.0b
Cold ambient temperatures Failure 50.0a 43.4a 33.4a
Success 50.0a 56.6a 66.6a
Stocks Warm ambient temperatures Failure 13.4a 26.6abA 50.0bB
Success 86.6a 73.4abA 50.0bB
Cold ambient temperatures Failure 70.0a 56.6ab 43.4b
Success 30.0a 43.4ab 56.6b
  1. Success rate (%) of end-point detection in response to thermal stimulation in 5 horses housed in a box stall or standing in stocks. Thermal stimulus was given to three different body parts (nostril, withers, coronary band) and during two different ambient temperatures (< 20°C or < 10°C). The overall number of stimulations was n = 30.
  2. ‘success’ – clear, visible reaction to the thermal stimulus before reaching cut out (threshold < cut-out temperature (56°C)). ‘failure’ - no visible reaction to the thermal stimulus and cut-out (56°C) was reached.
  3. Comparison between locations: nostril/withers, nostril/coronary band, withers/coronary band.
  4. a, b, c = values with unequal superscript numbers were significantly different (p < 0.05).
  5. A, B, C = values with different superscript numbers had a statistical trend (p < 0.1).