| Literature DB >> 33800962 |
Carmen Luz Barrios1,2, Valentina Aguirre3, Alonso Parra4, Carlos Pavletic4, Carlos Bustos-López5, Sandra Perez1, Carla Urrutia1, Josefa Ramirez1, Jaume Fatjó2.
Abstract
Dog bites are a major public health problem, with consequences such as physical injury, psychological trauma, transmission of zoonoses, infections, and economic costs. For this reason, it is necessary to develop preventive programs, which require quality information to support the authorities' decision-making and to raise public awareness about the application of the proposed measures. The objective of this review was to analyze the press, indexed and gray dog bite literature published during the 2013-2017 period. During that period, 385 articles from three sources of information were analyzed: Press literature, scientific literature, and gray literature. Of these, the greatest amount of information corresponding to the context and the aggressor animal was found in the press literature, where it was recorded that the greatest number of records reported in the Chilean articles were caused by potentially dangerous breeds (87.50%), having significant differences with the gray literature (p = 0.030), and in Spain, the greatest number of attacks was also made by potentially dangerous dogs 91.30% (21/23), statistically significant differences with the gray literature (p = 0.002) and with the indexed (p < 0.001). In the case of the scientific and gray literature, the greatest amount of information was found about the victim of the attack and the treatments applied to them. In these cases, the highest percentage of victims included in the reports contained both sexes for the two literatures (44.62% and 87.71%, respectively). Regarding the treatment applied, in the scientific literature in most of the reports, the patients received washings, rabies vaccine, and tetanus vaccine (46.26%) and presented significant differences in Chile with the information contained in the gray literature (p = 0.023), in Spain with the gray (p = 0.017) and with the press (p = 0.023). In conclusion, the press literature differs in multiple variables with the information reported in the scientific literature and, in some cases, with the gray literature. The reason why the material that is being distributed to the population would not coincide in multiple relevant variables in other literature and the representative reality of the problem is the basis for this topic.Entities:
Keywords: bites; dog aggression; dog bites; dog bites review
Year: 2021 PMID: 33800962 PMCID: PMC8004056 DOI: 10.3390/ani11030893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Keywords in English and Spanish. Multiple keywords were used in the collection of articles (Table 1). Each word was searched in both English and Spanish, with only a few exceptions in one language (e.g., canin *) in response to the first search strategy test, as it sometimes only has responses in one language.
| Keywords in English | Keywords in Spanish |
|---|---|
| Dog | Perro |
Search strategies used in systematic review. The truncation (*) was used to extend the search to all words with a common beginning (e.g., canin *).
| Search Strategy | AND | AND | AND | NOT (*) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dog bites OR “mordeduras de perro” | injuries OR wounds OR lesions OR | epidemiology OR epidemic OR epidemiología OR public health | bites OR biting OR bitten OR “Bites and Stings” [Mesh] | insect bites OR tick bites OR snake bites OR fly bites OR sand flies |
In addition, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined.
Figure 1Flow chart used for the systematic review. Meaning of abbreviations: CH: Chile, SP: Spain, FT: Full text and N°: Number.
Classification of the variables of interest for further analysis.
| Variable | Variable Description | Variable Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Bitten person | ||
| Sex | Sex of the bitten person. | Man |
| Age group | Age group of the victim, measured in years | Group 1 (0–4 years) |
| Victim-context characteristics | Reported characteristics of the victim associated with the context of the attack | Sexual abuser |
| Educational level | Educational category reached by the victim | No formal education |
| Biting animal information | ||
| Report of the biting dog-victim ownership relationship | Status of ownership of the animal with a responsible person, guardian, or owner | It belonged to the victim |
| Potentially dangerous dog (PDD) | Dog belonging to a breed, or its crosses, with potential aggressive characteristics in accordance with the regulations of each country or territory | Reports with PDD breed |
| Knowledge of the biting animal by the victim | Statement of knowledge of owner, address, or habitual location of the biting dog | Known Animal |
| Biting dog size | Subjective statement of the affected person in relation to the size or height of the biting animal. The sizes of the biting animals were classified as follows: Small (less than 14 kg), medium (between 14–25 kg), large (25–50 kg), and giant (over 50 kg). | Small |
| Biting dog vaccination status | Declaration of validity of rabies vaccination of the biting animal | Vaccinated |
| Biting dog sex | Sex of the dog causing the bites | Male |
| Reproductive status of the biting animal | Statement of reproductive status of the aggressor dog | Sterilized |
| Information about the attack context | ||
| Location of the attack | Place where the bite incident occurred | Inside the doghouse |
| Context | Situation or interaction between the affected person and the biting animal, in which the biting incident occurred related to the activity that the aggressor animal was performing at the time of the attack | Sleeping |
| Season of the year of the attack | Time of year the bite incident occurred. In the case of articles based on information from countries in the northern hemisphere, the following dates were considered: | Spring |
| Type of approach | Circumstance in which the incident occurred regarding the approach of the person and the animal | Human to dog |
| Characteristics of the lesions-treatment | ||
| Number of bites | N°. of reported bites. The classification of single or multiple bites was considered to be the number of bites per victim. | Single |
| Severity of injury | Level of damage caused by the bite | Mild (scratch) |
| Treatment type | Clinical, pharmacological, surgical, or other interventions applied to the bitten person | Wash, rabies vaccine, tetanus vaccine |
| Anatomical area of the injury | Place in the body where the injury caused by the biting animal was located. | Head and neck |
Frequency of records that contain information about the person bitten in incidents of canine attacks in the Chilean written press, indexed and gray literature.
| Press | Indexed | Gray | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Man | 29 | 74.4% | 93 | 37.05% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.044 |
| Woman | 10 | 25.6% | 46 | 18.33% | 1 | 14.29% | 0.517 | 0.282 | 0.785 |
| Both | 0 | 0.0% | 112 | 44.62% | 6 | 85.71% | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Reported | 39 | 84.8% | 251 | 89.64% | 7 | 50.00% | 0.007 | 0.330 | 0.000 |
| Not reported | 7 | 15.2% | 29 | 10.36% | 7 | 50.00% | 0.007 | 0.330 | 0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Group 1 | 3 | 11.54% | 66 | 18.54% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.146 | 0.370 | 0.050 |
| Group 2 | 1 | 3.85% | 36 | 10.11% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.757 | 0.297 | 0.569 |
| Group 3 | 1 | 3.85% | 27 | 7.58% | 5 | 29.41% | 0.018 | 0.480 | 0.002 |
| Group 4 | 6 | 23.08% | 32 | 8.99% | 4 | 23.53% | 0.973 | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Group 5 | 1 | 3.85% | 25 | 7.02% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.757 | 0.535 | 0.857 |
| Group 6 | 2 | 7.69% | 54 | 15.17% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.820 | 0.298 | 0.291 |
| Group 7 | 2 | 7.69% | 58 | 16.29% | 2 | 11.76% | 0.000 | 0.245 | 0.620 |
| Group 8 | 10 | 38.46% | 58 | 16.29% | 3 | 17.65% | 0.146 | 0.004 | 0.883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Reported | 25 | 54.35% | 226 | 80.71% | 4 | 28.57% | 0.091 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Not reported | 21 | 45.65% | 54 | 19.29% | 10 | 71.43% | 0.091 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sexual abuser | 1 | 7.69% | 1 | 0.88% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.620 | 0.063 | 0.870 |
| Illegal Pit Bull breeder | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | ------- | ------ | ------ |
| Housewife | 0 | 0.00% | 16 | 14.16% | 0 | 0.00% | ------- | 0.146 | 0.483 |
| Student | 2 | 15.38% | 18 | 15.93% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.468 | 0.959 | 0.452 |
| Guard | 1 | 7.69% | 2 | 1.77% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.620 | 0.185 | 0.816 |
| Thief | 1 | 7.69% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.620 | 0.003 | ------- |
| Military/police | 2 | 15.38% | 4 | 3.54% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.000 | 0.058 | 0.740 |
| Unemployed | 0 | 0.00% | 7 | 6.19% | 0 | 0.00% | ------ | 0.356 | 0.657 |
| Dependent worker | 3 | 23.08% | 31 | 27.43% | 3 | 100.00% | 0.013 | 0.738 | 0.006 |
| Independent worker | 2 | 15.38% | 30 | 26.55% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.468 | 0.381 | 0.300 |
| Tourist | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 3.54% | 0 | 0.00% | ------ | 0.491 | 0.740 |
| Animal | 1 | 7.69% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.620 | 0.003 | ------ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Reported | 13 | 28.26% | 40 | 14.29% | 1 | 7.14% | 0.102 | 0.017 | 0.452 |
| Not reported | 33 | 71.74% | 240 | 85.71% | 13 | 92.86% | 0.102 | 0.017 | 0.452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No formal education | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0% | 0 | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |
| Preschool | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 7.14% | 0 | -------- | -------- | 0.696 | -------- |
| Basic school | 1 | 50.00% | 8 | 28.57% | 0 | -------- | -------- | 0.523 | -------- |
| Middle school | 0 | 0.00% | 9 | 32.14% | 0 | -------- | -------- | 0.338 | -------- |
| Higher education | 1 | 50.00% | 5 | 17.86% | 0 | -------- | -------- | 0.272 | -------- |
| Postgraduate | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 14.29% | 0 | -------- | -------- | 0.566 | -------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Reported | 2 | 4.35% | 9 | 3.21% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.427 | 0.693 | 0.496 |
| Not reported | 44 | 95.65% | 271 | 96.79% | 14 | 100.00% | 0.427 | 0.693 | 0.496 |
P = Press literature, I = Indexed literature, G = Gray literature.
Frequency of records that contain information about the person bitten in incidents of canine attacks in the Spanish written press, indexed and gray literature.
| Press Literature | Indexed Literature | Gray Literature | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Man | 20 | 48.78% | 93 | 37% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.016 | 0.153 | 0.044 |
| Woman | 21 | 51.22% | 46 | 18% | 1 | 14.29% | 0.070 | 0.000 | 0.785 |
| Both | 0 | 0.00% | 112 | 45% | 6 | 85.71% | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Reported | 41 | 91.11% | 251 | 90% | 7 | 50.00% | 0.001 | 0.762 | 0.000 |
| Not reported | 4 | 8.89% | 29 | 10% | 7 | 50.00% | 0.001 | 0.762 | 0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Group 1 | 8 | 19.05% | 66 | 19% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.053 | 0.936 | 0.050 |
| Group 2 | 6 | 14.29% | 36 | 10% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.366 | 0.405 | 0.569 |
| Group 3 | 2 | 4.76% | 27 | 8% | 5 | 29.41% | 0.008 | 0.506 | 0.002 |
| Group 4 | 7 | 16.67% | 32 | 9% | 4 | 23.53% | 0.540 | 0.113 | 0.047 |
| Group 5 | 2 | 4.76% | 25 | 7% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.859 | 0.582 | 0.857 |
| Group 6 | 7 | 16.67% | 54 | 15% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.273 | 0.799 | 0.291 |
| Group 7 | 4 | 9.52% | 58 | 16% | 2 | 11.76% | 0.000 | 0.253 | 0.620 |
| Group 8 | 6 | 14.29% | 58 | 16% | 3 | 17.65% | 0.745 | 0.738 | 0.883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Reported | 34 | 75.56% | 226 | 81% | 4 | 28.57% | 0.001 | 0.422 | 0.000 |
| Not reported | 11 | 24.44% | 54 | 19% | 10 | 71.43% | 0.001 | 0.422 | 0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Sexual abuser | 1 | 20.00% | 1 | 1% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.408 | 0.001 | 0.870 |
| Illegal Pit Bull breeder | 1 | 20.00% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.408 | 0.000 | ----- |
| Housewife | 0 | 0.00% | 16 | 14% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.365 | 0.483 |
| Student | 0 | 0.00% | 18 | 16% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.332 | 0.452 |
| Guard | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 2% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.764 | 0.816 |
| Thief | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Military/police | 2 | 40.00% | 4 | 4% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.740 |
| Unemployed | 0 | 0.00% | 7 | 6% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.566 | 0.657 |
| Dependent worker | 1 | 20.00% | 31 | 27% | 3 | 100.00% | 0.028 | 0.714 | 0.006 |
| Independent worker | 0 | 0.00% | 30 | 27% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.182 | 0.300 |
| Tourist | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 4% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.669 | 0.740 |
| Animal | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | ----- | ----- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Reported | 5 | 11.11% | 40 | 14% | 1 | 7.14% | 0.668 | 0.567 | 0.452 |
| Not reported | 40 | 88.89% | 240 | 86% | 13 | 92.86% | 0.668 | 0.567 | 0.452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| No formal education | 0 | ----- | 0 | 0% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Preschool | 0 | ----- | 2 | 7% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Basic school | 0 | ----- | 8 | 29% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Middle school | 0 | ----- | 9 | 32% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Higher education | 0 | ----- | 5 | 18% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Postgraduate | 0 | ----- | 4 | 14% | 0 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Reported | 0 | 0.00% | 9 | 0.032 | 0 | 0.00% | ----- | 0.223 | 0.496 |
| Not reported | 45 | 100.00% | 271 | 0.968 | 14 | 100.00% | ----- | 0.223 | 0.496 |
P = Press literature, I = Indexed literature, G = Gray literature.
Figure 2Frequency of records that report potentially dangerous dog bites in the different types of literature in Chile and Spain. The letters a and b refer to statistically significant differences in Chilean literature, and the letters c and d, statistically significant differences between Spanish literatures.
Figure 3Frequency of records that report bites resulting in death in the different types of literature in Chile and Spain. The letters a and b refer to statistically significant differences in the Chilean literature, and the letter c indicates that there are no statistically significant differences between the Spanish literatures.