Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 27;7:519601. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.519601

Table 2.

Latent class models for treatment of lambs and ewes.

Latent class No. of flocks GM prevalence of lameness in lambs (95% CI) BH-adjusted P GM prevalence of lameness in ewes (95% CI) BH-adjusted P
LC2 LC3 LC4 LC2 LC3 LC4
Treatment of lambs latent class model
LC1 117 1.0 (0.6–1.7)a <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 2.8 (2.0–3.9)a 0.70 0.70 0.70
LC2 214 2.8 (2.2–3.5)b 0.60 0.50 3.7 (3.2–4.3)a 0.90 0.90
LC3 257 3.1 (2.3–3.7)b 0.74 4.0 (3.6–4.4)a 0.90
LC4 235 3.5 (3.1–4.1)b 3.9 (3.5–4.3)a
Treatment of ewes latent class model
LC1 86 1.1 (0.6–2.1)a 0.15 0.04 <0.01 1.8 (1.0–3.1)a 0.62 0.01 0.01
LC2 134 2.4 (1.8–3.2)ab 0.45 0.15 3.2 (2.9–3.7)a 0.02 0.01
LC3 198 2.5 (1.9–3.3)b 0.45 3.9 (3.5–4.4)b 0.78
LC4 490 3.0 (2.6–3.4)b 4.2 (3.9–4.5)b

Number of flocks, geometric mean period prevalence of lameness and 95% confidence intervals for treatment of lambs (823 flocks) and treatment of ewes (908 flocks) with footrot in England, 2012–2013.

GM, geometric mean; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval (lower, upper); BH, Benjamini–Hochberg. Where superscripts (a, b) differ across rows, prevalence of lesion or lameness differs (BH-adjusted Wilcoxon p ≤ 0.05) between latent classes. BH-adjusted Wilcoxon p-values are shown for all pairwise comparisons of prevalence of lameness between latent classes.