Standing surgery among equine board certified surgeons: Survey regarding current use and trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Publications about equine standing surgery are flourishing, however, information regarding its use and prevalence among surgeons is still limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the current use and recent trends for equine standing surgery among board certified surgeons and to identify the main reasons and limitations for performing a procedure standing. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A 139-item questionnaire was sent by email to 733 large animal surgery Diplomates (ACVS and ECVS) from November 2020 to February 2021. The survey collected demographic information and general data regarding standing surgery before being divided into seven identical sections for each body system, involving 36 standing procedures. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 29.7% (218/733). Most respondents (58.9%, 126/214) had performed standing surgery for <10 years regardless of length of time they were board certified (48.2% board certified <10 years and 51.8% >10 years). Most respondents (range: 50.0%-92.9%, mean 69.5%) changed from performing 14/36 surgeries under general anaesthesia (GA) to standing within the previous 10 years and had always performed 8/36 surgeries standing (51.6%-73.9%, mean 61.4%) regardless of board certification time. Surgeons board certified <10 years ago performed more often 3/36 listed procedures standing than those board certified >10 years ago (p < 0.05). Avoiding GA (179/218) and/or reducing procedure cost (111/218) were the two main reasons to perform standing surgeries whereas the horse's behaviour (183/218) and/or the patient size/age (94/218) were the two main limiting factors. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Low response rate. Results biased towards the opinion of a subgroup of surgeons, those performing standing surgery. Some standing procedures were not included in the survey. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standing surgery is well established among board certified surgeons and progressively increasing, especially in the last 10 years and among recent Diplomates. With increased training and awareness, more Diplomates may be encouraged towards performing standing surgeries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".