• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

SmartGut Ultra...with clinical research!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SmartGut Ultra...with clinical research!

    SmartGut Ultra
    Saw smartpak's latest supplement, smartgut ultra. Anyone think it will be the "next big thing"? I have to say I'm not impressed by their "research".
    come what may

    Rest in peace great mare, 1987-2013

  • #2
    Count me in as another who was not impressed with the "research"...

    n=8...come on! They couldn't find more than 8 horses!
    And, if I'm reading the graph correctly, the control group and the research group had the exact same number of ulcers so how again does the SmartGut Ultra results in less ulcers for the horses taking it, versus the ones who aren't?!
    "If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple payments..."

    Comment


    • #3
      Here is the link to the "research":

      http://www.smartpakequine.com/pdfs/S...ch_Summary.pdf
      "If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple payments..."

      Comment


      • #4
        How you can get p values like that from 8 horses escapes me . . .

        What *is* striking is the obvious rebound recurrence of ulcers. Supports the idea that PPIs
        should be weaned more than it supports the addition of nostrums and potions, IMO.
        Click here before you buy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Delta - are you reading the graph the same way that I am? That at the end, the horses fed SGU had the same number as the control group, thereby showing that SmartGutUltra doesn't mean less ulcers?
          "If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple payments..."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SuckerForHorses View Post
            Count me in as another who was not impressed with the "research"...

            n=8...come on! They couldn't find more than 8 horses!
            And, if I'm reading the graph correctly, the control group and the research group had the exact same number of ulcers so how again does the SmartGut Ultra results in less ulcers for the horses taking it, versus the ones who aren't?!

            The P value determines statistical significance; doesn't really matter the n= as long as it's over 3 really.

            http://frank.mtsu.edu/~dwalsh/436/CORRSIG.pdf
            Originally posted by rustbreeches
            [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by deltawave View Post
              How you can get p values like that from 8 horses escapes me . . .

              What *is* striking is the obvious rebound recurrence of ulcers. Supports the idea that PPIs
              should be weaned more than it supports the addition of nostrums and potions, IMO.
              I do agree with this.

              ETA---To me, this study doesn't look like SmartGutULTRA does anything to prevent or help with the recurrence of ulcers longterm. It does do something a bit ~14 days later (after the cessation of omeprazole) I would say, but it seems to have some sort of tapering off effect later on.
              Originally posted by rustbreeches
              [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jlphilli View Post
                The P value determines statistical significance

                http://frank.mtsu.edu/~dwalsh/436/CORRSIG.pdf
                Be definition, yes. I think DW's point is that how can you say there is statistical significance with only 8 test subjects? That's a pretty small test group.
                "If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple payments..."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SuckerForHorses View Post
                  Be definition, yes. I think DW's point is that how can you say there is statistical significance with only 8 test subjects? That's a pretty small test group.
                  I actually don't think that's a small test group for a large animal study. Like I said...as long as it's more than 3, the P value determines significance. It just doesn't matter (statistics).
                  Originally posted by rustbreeches
                  [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jlphilli View Post
                    I actually don't think that's a small test group for a large animal study.


                    Really???
                    "If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple payments..."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SuckerForHorses View Post


                      Really???
                      Considering this isn't a Nature paper, yes.
                      Originally posted by rustbreeches
                      [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's some examples of "legit" studies:

                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23186182 (5 horses)
                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206314 (9 horses)
                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206274 (13 horses)
                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206252 (7 umbilical cord samples)
                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23205506 (62 horses using medical records only)

                        ETA--I didn't pick and choose; I went from the top 5 of the Equine Vet Journal
                        Originally posted by rustbreeches
                        [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          According to this report, there were 8 horses per treatment. This is actually a pretty good number of animals for a study with horses, especially one that requires repeated gastroscopy and measurements of gastric pH. In other studies done by this group, they have used a total of 8 horses in a crossover design. Each horse serves as its own control, and this is a good statistical tool when limited numbers of animals are available.

                          This report doesn't reveal what was done between days 35 and 42, so we can't determine why the ulcer score there decreased. I suspect the horses received another course of GastroGard during that time. I was unable to find this information published in a peer-reviewed journal.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No, a n=8 is actually fairly typical for this type of study in the veterinary world. So while I would still call it "small" one could also argue that it is the norm. Especially for what is probably a non-funded study.

                            And I'm no statistician, but to get very significant p values (<0.05) with just a few subjects requires that the endpoints being looked at vary quite widely, no? I do hope someone more statistically fluent than I can clarify, but the results shown do not appear to me to match up with anything that would give such a low p value. Seems more to me like torturing the data to make things look "significant".

                            It is an effort, and any company trying to make an effort gets kudos from me. I just think the data presented says a lot more about the nature of ulcers and the perils of stopping omeprazole abruptly (although ulcers did seem to respond well in these 8 horses in only 14 days) than it does about the wonders of their supplement.
                            Click here before you buy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You do not need wildly different endpoints to get P < 0.05 with 16 horses. If they did, indeed, use a crossover design, this would reduce the contribution of animal-to-animal variation even more. It is entirely plausible to have P < 0.05 in this situation. That said, there is not enough information in this report to adequately evaluate the research. With this number of animals, they could show the raw data rather than ulcer scores. A horse with an ulcer score of 1 might have 2 lesions, while a horse with a score of 2 might have 3 lesions. One could argue that this is not a meaningful difference. However, with this number of animals, sometimes it's necessary to put the responses into categories to glean useful information. This is one reason why an individual study should not be viewed as the "answer". As a scientist, it's also important to consider the possibility that the product does have an effect. You have to be skeptical, but fairly evaluate the information. That said, I would not recommend this product based on the information they presented.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Skip's Rider View Post
                                You do not need wildly different endpoints to get P < 0.05 with 16 horses. If they did, indeed, use a crossover design, this would reduce the contribution of animal-to-animal variation even more. It is entirely plausible to have P < 0.05 in this situation. That said, there is not enough information in this report to adequately evaluate the research. With this number of animals, they could show the raw data rather than ulcer scores. A horse with an ulcer score of 1 might have 2 lesions, while a horse with a score of 2 might have 3 lesions. One could argue that this is not a meaningful difference. However, with this number of animals, sometimes it's necessary to put the responses into categories to glean useful information. This is one reason why an individual study should not be viewed as the "answer". As a scientist, it's also important to consider the possibility that the product does have an effect. You have to be skeptical, but fairly evaluate the information. That said, I would not recommend this product based on the information they presented.
                                ^
                                Originally posted by rustbreeches
                                [George Morris] doesn't always drink beer, but when he does, he prefers Dos Equis

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Thank you for that!
                                  Click here before you buy.

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X