Without an experimental model of equine grass sickness (EGS), a randomised controlled field trial (RCT) represents the only method of evaluating the efficacy of Clostridium botulinum type C vaccination in preventing naturally occurring disease. Clinical trial feasibility is an important aspect of preliminary work undertaken prior to initiating RCTs, estimating parameters that are important for study design. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a nationwide RCT of a candidate vaccine for EGS based on responses from a sample of British equine veterinary practices (n = 119/284). Seventy-three percent of practices had attended ≥1 EGS case within the preceding 2 years (median four cases), and 51.3% regularly attended recurrently affected premises. Veterinary surgeons had greater confidence diagnosing acute/subacute EGS based solely on history and clinical signs compared to chronic EGS. Ninety-one percent of respondents (n = 103/113) considered the proposed RCT to be important/very important to equine veterinary research. Ninety-one percent of respondents (n = 102/112) indicated preparedness to assist in owner recruitment and 92.9% (n = 104/112) indicated willingness to participate in a RCT. The most frequent reasons for practices declining to participate were low incidence of EGS (n = 4), did not believe clients would wish to participate (n = 3) and amount of paperwork/data collection involved (n = 2). There was considerable support amongst participating veterinary practices for a RCT evaluating the efficacy of Clostridium botulinum vaccination for the prevention of EGS in Britain. Substantial proportions of participating practices would be prepared to participate in the RCT and regularly attended EGS-affected premises that would meet trial inclusion criteria.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#28,599,837
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Journal
#1,817
of 2,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,644
of 336,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Journal
#25
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
