Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Abstract: The skill to diagnose lameness in horses is paramount for every equine practitioner. Early recognition of locomotor deficiencies plays a central role in sports medicine management, preventing deterioration of the disease or catastrophic injuries. Horses use characteristic compensatory movements of specific body parts to decrease loading of the affected limb. This article describes the underlying changes in intra- and interlimb coordination and the resulting load redistribution between the limbs. This enables the practitioner to better understand the changes in movement associated with lameness.

Abstract: Recently, training horses within round-pens has increased in popularity. Practitioners often maintain that the responses they elicit from horses are similar to signals used with senior conspecifics. To audit the responses of horses to conspecifics, 6 mare-young-horse dyads, this study introduced them to each other in a round-pen and videoed them for 8 min. These dyads spent significantly more time farther than 10 m apart than they did less than 1 m apart (p < .001). The time they spent less than 1 m apart decreased over the 8-min test period (p = .018). Mares occupied the center of the round-pen and chased youngsters for 0.73% of the test period (p < .001). Mares made all agonistic approaches (p < .001), and youngsters (p = .018) made all investigative approaches. Head lowering and licking-and-chewing were exhibited most when the youngsters were facing away from the mares (p < .001). The frequency of head lowering increased during the test period (p = .027), whereas the frequency of licking-and-chewing did not change. The results bring into question the popular interpretation and ethological relevance of equine responses commonly described in round-pen training and show that mares did not condition young horses to remain in close proximity to them.