Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Veterinary Surgery
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1431855
This article is part of the Research Topic Sports Medicine and Physical Rehabilitation, Volume III View all 13 articles

Interobserver variability of assessing body condition scores and muscle condition scores in a population of 43 active working explosive detection dogs

Provisionally accepted
Kimberly M. Christie Kimberly M. Christie 1*Jennifer A. Barnhard Jennifer A. Barnhard 1,2Cynthia M. Otto Cynthia M. Otto 3,4Amritha Mallikarjun Amritha Mallikarjun 3,4Clara Wilson Clara Wilson 3,4David Levine David Levine 5Ashley Tringali Ashley Tringali 2Chelsea E. Payne Chelsea E. Payne 6Anke Langenbach Anke Langenbach 1Matthew W. Brunke Matthew W. Brunke 7
  • 1 Veterinary Surgical Centers (VSC), Vienna, United States
  • 2 Tactical Veterinary Solutions LLC, Cabin John, United States
  • 3 Penn Vet Working Dog Center, Philadelphia, United States
  • 4 School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 5 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States
  • 6 U.S. Army Veterinary Corps, Fort Belvoir, United States
  • 7 Veterinary Referral Associates, Gaithersburg, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    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.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 (MCS 3) was assessed in 86.05% (n=37) of EDDs by the handlers versus in 70.54% by the veterinary team.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.

    Keywords: Bcs1, MCS2, detection dog 3, EDD4, handler5, working dog6, veterinarian7

    Received: 13 May 2024; Accepted: 17 Sep 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Christie, Barnhard, Otto, Mallikarjun, Wilson, Levine, Tringali, Payne, Langenbach and Brunke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Kimberly M. Christie, Veterinary Surgical Centers (VSC), Vienna, United States

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.