Table 3 Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of categories within variables year, going, race off time and previous exertional heat illness (EHI) incident. The table presents the number of horse performances in each category of the down-sampled dataset and the number of those that resulted in an EHI incident in brackets, odds ratios (OR), t-ratios, p values using tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons and lower (CI-L) and upper (CI-U) 95% confidence interval. * indicates p values less than 0.05.

From: Risk factors for, and prediction of, exertional heat illness in Thoroughbred racehorses at British racecourses

Variable

Comparison

Performances (EHI incidents)

OR

CI-L

CI-U

t-ratio

p value

Previous incident

Yes/no

177 (134) versus 7072 (525)

18.59

12.00

28.70

13.197

<.0001*

Race off time

Pre 5 p.m./after 5 p.m.

4766 (530) versus 2483 (129)

1.478

1.140

1.910

2.964

0.003*

Going

Firm/Good

1055 (41) versus 1935 (274)

0.589

0.334

1.041

− 2.538

0.083

Firm/Heavy

1055 (41) versus 391 (60)

0.426

0.197

0.922

− 3.015

0.022*

Firm/Soft

1055 (41) versus 2278 (269)

0.471

0.257

0.865

− 3.377

0.007*

Firm/Standard

1055 (41) versus 1590 (15)

1.222

0.491

3.045

0.600

0.975

Good/Heavy

1935 (274) versus 391 (60)

0.723

0.402

1.299

− 1.512

0.555

Good/Soft

1935 (274) versus 2278 (269)

0.800

0.561

1.140

− 1.721

0.421

Good/Standard

1935 (274) versus 1590 (15)

2.075

0.909

4.736

2.413

0.112

Heavy/Soft

391 (60) versus 2278 (269)

1.107

0.652

1.878

0.522

0.985

Heavy/Standard

391 (60) versus 1590 (15)

2.870

1.130

7.289

3.087

0.017*

Soft/Standard

2278 (269) versus 1590 (15)

2.594

1.149

5.854

3.195

0.012*

Year

2011/2012

607 (43) versus 1019 (58)

1.228

0.586

2.575

0.842

0.991

2011/2013

607 (43) versus 1020 (55)

1.349

0.638

2.855

1.211

0.929

2011/2014

607 (43) versus 1051 (69)

1.254

0.614

2.563

0.961

0.980

2011/2015

607 (43) versus 977 (99)

0.791

0.397

1.576

− 1.031

0.970

2011/2016

607 (43) versus 1064 (98)

0.819

0.411

1.633

− 0.878

0.988

2011/2017

607 (43) versus 1184 (158)

0.624

0.322

1.208

− 2.164

0.374

2011/2018

607 (43) versus 327 (79)

0.434

0.193

0.976

− 3.124

0.038*

2012/2013

1019 (58) versus 1020 (55)

1.098

0.558

2.163

0.420

1.000

2012/2014

1019 (58) versus 1051 (69)

1.021

0.537

1.941

0.099

1.000

2012/2015

1019 (58) versus 977 (99)

0.644

0.349

1.190

− 2.172

0.369

2012/2016

1019 (58) versus 1064 (98)

0.667

0.361

1.231

− 2.006

0.478

2012/2017

1019 (58) versus 1184 (158)

0.508

0.285

0.906

− 3.548

0.009*

2012/2018

1019 (58) versus 327 (79)

0.353

0.170

0.733

− 4.326

0.0004*

2013/2014

1020 (55) versus 1051 (69)

0.930

0.484

1.787

− 0.339

1.000

2013/2015

1020 (55) versus 977 (99)

0.586

0.313

1.098

− 2.581

0.163

2013/2016

1020 (55) versus 1064 (98)

0.607

0.326

1.131

− 2.433

0.225

2013/2017

1020 (55) versus 1184 (158)

0.462

0.256

0.835

− 3.955

0.002*

2013/2018

1020 (55) versus 327 (79)

0.322

0.153

0.677

− 4.620

0.0001*

2014/2015

1051 (69) versus 977 (99)

0.631

0.353

1.128

− 2.404

0.240

2014/2016

1051 (69) versus 1064 (98)

0.653

0.364

1.170

− 2.215

0.343

2014/2017

1051 (69) versus 1184 (158)

0.497

0.288

0.858

− 3.887

0.003*

2014/2018

1051 (69) versus 327 (79)

0.346

0.170

0.705

− 4.519

0.0002*

2015/2016

977 (99) versus 1064 (98)

1.035

0.595

1.799

0.187

1.000

2015/2017

977 (99) versus 1184 (158)

0.788

0.472

1.315

− 1.409

0.853

2015/2018

977 (99) versus 327 (79)

0.548

0.277

1.086

− 2.667

0.133

2016/2017

1064 (98) versus 1184 (158)

0.762

0.456

1.271

− 1.611

0.744

2016/2018

1064 (98) versus 327 (79)

0.530

0.267

1.054

− 2.802

0.095

2017/2018

1184 (158) versus 327 (79)

0.696

0.362

1.336

− 1.686

0.696

Back to article page