to the table was classified as‘ voluntary’ or‘ needing lift’. Each dog ' s behaviour could thus be classified according to the list below, resulting in five categories of‘ floor interaction’:
1. Enters the examination room without hesitation, seeks contact, gets on to the examination table voluntarily.
2. Enters the examination room without hesitation, does not seek contact, gets on to the examination table voluntarily.
3. Enters the examination room without hesitation, does not seek contact, needs lifting on to the examination table.
4. Enters the examination room with invitation, does not seek contact, gets on to the examination table voluntarily.
5. Enters the examination room with invitation, does not seek contact, needs lifting on to the examination table.
Statistical analysis
Data tables and graphs were produced in Microsoft Excel. A non-parametric method was used to compare placebo with treatment( DEXO or FSAR). For all physiological data combined, a one-sided Wilcoxon matched-pairs signedrank test was performed using GraphPad.
The statistical calculations were based on a confidence interval with a confidence level of 95 %, which gave a limit for statistical significance with a p-value < 0.05.
All data were analysed for normal distribution. For behaviours, descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Individual physiological measurements and paired differences are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Physiological responses in six beagles after receiving DEXO, FSAR( SFAR) or placebo. MAP, mean arterial pressure; RR, respiratory rate.
22 Veterinary Nursing Journal