Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion Criteria
2.3. Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Types of Variables Analyzed
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics of the Publications
3.2. Frequency of Reports with Information about the Person Bitten
3.3. Frequency of Reports with Information about the Biting Animal
3.4. Frequency of Reports with Information about the Attack Context in Bite Incidents
3.5. Characteristics of Lesions-Treatment Produced by Canine Bites
4. Discussion
4.1. Press Literature
4.2. Indexed Literature
4.3. Gray Literature
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Villagra, V.; Cáceres, D.; Alvarado, S.; Salinas, E.; Caldera, M.L.; Lucero, E.; Viviani, P.; Torres, M. Caracterización epidemiológica de mordeduras en personas, según registro de atención de urgencia: Provincia de Los Andes. Chile. Rev. Chil. Infectol. 2017, 34, 212–220. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samanta, M.; Mondal, R.; Shah, A.; Hazra, A.; Ray, S.; Dhar, G.; Biswas, R.; Sabui, T.K.; Raychaudhuri, D.; Chatterjee, K.; et al. Animal bites and rabies prophylaxis in rural children: Indian Perspective. J. Trop. Pediatr. 2016, 62, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Notejane, M.; Moure, T.; Da Silva, J.E.; Barrios, P.; Pérez, W. Niños con mordeduras de animales hospitalizados en un centro de referencia de Uruguay. Bol. Med. Hosp. Infant. Mex. 2019, 75, 358–365. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Barrios, C.L.; Vidal, M.; Parra, A.; Valladares, C.; González, C.; Pavletic, C. Epidemiological characterization of bites: A retrospective study of dog bites to humans in Chile during 2009. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 33, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramírez, R.S.; Castillo, V.V.; Hidalgo, M.T. Caracterización clínico-epidemiológica de mordeduras en personas mayores en la provincia de los Andes, región de Valparaíso, Chile. ARS Med. 2019, 43, 40–45. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loder, R.T.; Meixner, C. The demographics of dog bites due to K-9 (legal intervention) in the United States. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2019, 65, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2000–2017. 2018. Available online: https://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe (accessed on 20 October 2020).
- Ishaya, T.; Ibironke, O.; Stella, I.; Olatunde, A.; Gyang, M.; Israel, B.; Saidu, J.; Gambo, R.; Peterside, K.; Christianah, A.; et al. Dog Bites and Rabies: A Decade Perspective in Nigeria (2005–2014). World 2016, 6, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedy, N.J.; Coghill, S.; Chandrashekar, N.K.S.; Bindra, R.R. Capnocytophaga canimorsus sepsis following a minor dog bite to the finger: Case report. J. Hand Surg. Am. 2016, 41, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Talley, P.; Snippes-Vagnone, P.; Smith, K. Invasive Pasteurella multocida Infections—Report of Five Cases at a Minnesota Hospital, 2014. Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 431–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cubillos, M.C. Caracterización Epidemiológica de las Morderduras de Perro a la Población Humana Notificadas en Servicios de Salud de la Comuna de Quinta Normal, Santiago, 2012; Universidad De Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2014; pp. 1–14. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Taniyama, D.; Abe, Y.; Sakai, T.; Kikuchi, T.; Takahashi, T. Human case of bacteremia caused by Streptococcus canis sequence type 9 harboring the scm gene. IDCases 2017, 7, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delman, M.; Chalikonda, D.; Haroian, N.; Djurkovic, S. Capnocytophaga canimorsus meningitis in an immunocompetent woman: A case report and review of the literature. Infect. Dis. Clin. Pract. 2017, 25, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Li, S.; Xiang, H.; Lu, S.; Schwebel, D.C. Antecedents and consequences of pediatric dog-bite injuries and their developmental trends: 101 cases in rural China. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 63, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organización Mundial de la Salud. Mordeduras de animales. 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/animal-bites (accessed on 23 October 2020).
- Damborg, P.; Broens, E.M.; Chomel, B.B.; Guenther, S.; Pasmans, F.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Weese, J.S.; Wieler, L.H.; Windahl, U.; Vanrompay, D.; et al. Bacterial Zoonoses Transmitted by Household Pets: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives for Targeted Research and Policy Actions. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, S27–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Audu, S.W.; Mshelbwala, P.P.; Jahun, B.M.; Bouaddi, K.; Weese, J.S. Two fatal cases of rabies in humans who did not receive rabies postexposure prophylaxis in Nigeria. Clin. Case Rep. 2019, 7, 749–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Butler, T. Capnocytophaga canimorsus: An emerging cause of sepsis, meningitis, and post-splenectomy infection after dog bites. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2015, 34, 1271–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinze, S.; Feddersen-Petersen, D.U.; Tsokos, M.; Buschmann, C.; Püschel, K. Tödliche Attacken von Hunden auf Kinder: Aktualgenese und Motivation bei spezifischer Kasuistik und bestimmten pathomorphologischen Veränderungen. Rechtsmedizin 2014, 24, 37–41. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoro, V.; Smaldone, G.; Lozito, P.; Smaldone, M.; Introna, F. A forensic approach to fatal dog attacks. A case study and review of the literature. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 206, e37–e42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilson, F.; Damsager, J.; Lauritsen, J.; Bonander, C. The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iaboli, L.; Caselli, L.; Filice, A.; Russi, G.; Belletti, E. The unbearable lightness of health science reporting: A week examining italian print media. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tian, Y.; Robinson, J.D. Does the media support or sabotage health? Lancet 2009, 373, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, L.M.; Woloshin, S.; Andrews, A.; Stukel, T.A. Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2012, 344, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walsh-Childers, K.; Braddock, J.; Rabaza, C.; Schwitzer, G. One Step Forward, One Step Back: Changes in News Coverage of Medical Interventions. Health Commun. 2018, 33, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solans-Domènech, M.; Millaret, M.; Radó-Trilla, N.; Caro-Mendivelso, J.; Carrion, C.; Permanyer-Miralda, G.; Pons, J.M.V. Exhaustividad y tono crítico de las noticias en la prensa escrita que informan de una innovación médica. Gac. Sanit. 2019, 33, 99–105. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Schwitzer, G. A guide to reading health care news stories. JAMA Intern. Med. 2014, 174, 1183–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kline, K.N. A decade of research on health content in the media: The focus on health challenges and sociocultural context and attendant informational and ideological problems. J. Health Commun. 2006, 11, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schwitzer, G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med. 2008, 5, 700–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cassels, A.; Hughes, M.A.; Cole, C.; Mintzes, B.; Lexchin, J.; McCormack, J.P. Drugs in the news: An analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs. CMAJ 2003, 168, 1133–1137. [Google Scholar]
- Hochman, M.; Hochman, S.; Bor, D.; McCormick, D. News media coverage of medication research: Reporting pharmaceutical company funding and use of generic medication names. JAMA 2008, 300, 1544–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cook, D.M.; Boyd, E.A.; Grossmann, C.; Bero, L.A. Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Atteveldt, N.M.; Van Aalderen-Smeets, S.I.; Jacobi, C.; Ruigrok, N. Media reporting of neuroscience depends on timing, topic and newspaper type. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e104780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Racine, E.; Bar-Ilan, O.; Illes, J. Brain imaging: A decade of coverage in the print media. Sci. Commun. 2006, 28, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, S. Hope or hype: The obsession with medical advances and the high cost of false promises. J. Clin. Investig. 2005, 115, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moynihan, R.; Bero, L.; Ross-Degnan, D.; Henry, D.; Lee, K.; Watkins, J.; Mah, C.; Soumerai, S.B. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 1645–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carcela, R.M.R. La información de sucesos. Temática en prensa escrita. Corresp. Anál. 2011, 1, 309–325. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Mouton, M.; Boulton, A.; Solomon, O.; Rock, M.J. ‘When the dog bites’: What can we learn about health geography from newspaper coverage in a ‘model city’ for dog-bite prevention? Health Place 2019, 57, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parliament of Victoria. Inquiry into the Legislative and Regulatory Framework Relating to Restricted dog Breeds; Economy and Infrastructure committee: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2016; pp. 1–7.
- Kim, C.J. Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; p. 358. [Google Scholar]
- Townshend, I.; Miller, B.; Leslie, E. Socio-Spatial Polarization in an-Age of Income Inequality: An Exploration of Neighbourhood Change in Calgary’s “Three Cities”; Neighbourhood Change Research Project Paper: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
- Kearns, A.; Kearns, O.; Lawson, L. Notorious Places: Image, Reputation, Stigma. The Role of Newspapers in Area Reputations for Social Housing Estates. Hous. Stud. 2013, 28, 579–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McLaren, L.; Perry, R.; Carruthers, L.; Hawe, P. Introducing a means of quantifying community reputation: The print media as a data source. Health Place 2005, 11, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creedon, N.; Ó’Súilleabháin, P.S. Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: A comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Ir. Vet. J. 2017, 70, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pfortmueller, C.A.; Efeoglou, A.; Furrer, H.; Exadaktylos, A.K. Dog bite injuries: Primary and secondary emergency department presentations—A retrospective cohort study. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 393176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mori, J.; Tsubokura, M.; Sugimoto, A.; Tanimoto, T.; Kami, M.; Oikawa, T.; Kanazawa, Y. Increased incidence of dog-bite injuries after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 363–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamshirgaran, S.M.; Barzkar, H.; Ghaffari-Fam, S.; Kosha, A.; Sarbakhsh, P.; Ghasemzadeh, P. Epidemiological characteristics and trends in the incidence of animal bites in Maku County, Islamic Republic of Iran, 2003–2012. East. Mediterr. Health J. 2017, 23, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brownlee, S. Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer, 1st ed.; Bloomsbury USA: New York, NY, USA, 2008; p. 350. [Google Scholar]
- Welch, H.G.; Schwartz, L.; Woloshin, S. Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, 1st ed; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; p. 248. [Google Scholar]
- Wallington, S.F.; Blake, K.; Taylor-Clark, K.; Viswanath, K. Antecedents to agenda setting and framing in health news: An examination of priority, angle, source, and resource usage from a national survey of U.S. health reporters and editors. J. Health Commun. 2010, 15, 76–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yavchitz, A.; Boutron, I.; Bafeta, A.; Marroun, I.; Charles, P.; Mantz, J.; Ravaud, P. Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study. PLoS Med. 2012, 9, e1001308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Keywords in English | Keywords in Spanish |
---|---|
Dog Bites Bitten Biting “Bites and Stings” [MeSH] Epidemi * Public health Injur * Wounds Attack | Perro Canin * Mordedura Mordida (only in Press) “Mordeduras y Picaduras” [DeCS] Epidemi * Salud pública Lesiones |
Search Strategy | AND | AND | AND | NOT (*) |
---|---|---|---|---|
dog bites OR “mordeduras de perro” | injuries OR wounds OR lesions OR attack | 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 |
Variable | Variable Description | Variable Classification |
---|---|---|
Bitten person | ||
Sex | Sex of the bitten person. | Man Woman Both Not reported |
Age group | Age group of the victim, measured in years | Group 1 (0–4 years) Group 2 (>4–9 years) Group 3 (>9–14 years) Group 4 (>14–25 years) Group 5 (>25–35 years) Group 6 (>35–49 years) Group 7 (>49–64 years) Group 8 (≥65 years) Not reported |
Victim-context characteristics | Reported characteristics of the victim associated with the context of the attack | Sexual abuser Illegal Pit Bull breeder Housewife Student Guard Thief Military/police Unemployed Dependent worker Independent worker Tourist Not reported |
Educational level | Educational category reached by the victim | No formal education Preschool Basic school Middle school Higher education Postgraduate Not reported |
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 It did not belong to the victim Not reported |
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 Reports with no PDD breed Not reported |
Knowledge of the biting animal by the victim | Statement of knowledge of owner, address, or habitual location of the biting dog | Known Animal Unknown Animal Not reported |
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 Medium Big Giant Not reported |
Biting dog vaccination status | Declaration of validity of rabies vaccination of the biting animal | Vaccinated Not vaccinated Not reported |
Biting dog sex | Sex of the dog causing the bites | Male Female Both Not reported |
Reproductive status of the biting animal | Statement of reproductive status of the aggressor dog | Sterilized Not sterilized Not reported |
Information about the attack context | ||
Location of the attack | Place where the bite incident occurred | Inside the doghouse Public space Street Park Other Not reported |
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 Eating Playing Fighting with another dog Person walking or running Other Not reported |
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: 21 March to 20 June. Summer: 21 June to 20 September. Autumn: 21 September to 20 December. Winter: 21 December to 20 March. In the case of articles from the southern hemisphere Spring: 21 September to 20 December. Summer: 21 December to 20 March. Autumn: 21 March to 20 June. Winter: 21 June to 20 September. | Spring Summer Autumn Winter Not reported |
Type of approach | Circumstance in which the incident occurred regarding the approach of the person and the animal | Human to dog Dog to human Not reported |
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 Multiple Both Not reported |
Severity of injury | Level of damage caused by the bite | Mild (scratch) Intermediate (tissue penetration) Severe (tissue tear) Death Not reported |
Treatment type | Clinical, pharmacological, surgical, or other interventions applied to the bitten person | Wash, rabies vaccine, tetanus vaccine Antibiotic Surgery Amputation No treatment Not reported |
Anatomical area of the injury | Place in the body where the injury caused by the biting animal was located. | Head and neck Upper extremity Lower extremity Other single zone Multiple zones Not reported |
Press Literature (P) | Indexed Literature (I) | Gray Literature (G) | p-Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
Victim’s Sex Reports | N= | 39 | N= | 251 | N= | 7 | |||
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 |
N= | 46 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
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 |
Victim’s age group | N= | 26 | N= | 356 | N= | 17 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) |
Group 1 (0–4 years) | 3 | 11.54% | 66 | 18.54% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.146 | 0.370 | 0.050 |
Group 2 (>4–9 years) | 1 | 3.85% | 36 | 10.11% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.757 | 0.297 | 0.569 |
Group 3 (>9–14 years) | 1 | 3.85% | 27 | 7.58% | 5 | 29.41% | 0.018 | 0.480 | 0.002 |
Group 4 (>14–25 years) | 6 | 23.08% | 32 | 8.99% | 4 | 23.53% | 0.973 | 0.021 | 0.047 |
Group 5 (>25–35 years) | 1 | 3.85% | 25 | 7.02% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.757 | 0.535 | 0.857 |
Group 6 (>35–49 years) | 2 | 7.69% | 54 | 15.17% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.820 | 0.298 | 0.291 |
Group 7 (>49–64 years) | 2 | 7.69% | 58 | 16.29% | 2 | 11.76% | 0.000 | 0.245 | 0.620 |
Group 8 (≥65 years) | 10 | 38.46% | 58 | 16.29% | 3 | 17.65% | 0.146 | 0.004 | 0.883 |
N= | 46 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
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 |
Context-related characteristics of the victim | N= | 13 | N= | 113 | N= | 3 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) |
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 | ------ |
N= | 46 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
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 |
Educational level | N= | 2 | N= | 28 | N= | 0 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) |
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 | -------- |
N= | 46 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
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 |
Press Literature (P) | Indexed Literature (I) | Gray Literature (G) | p-Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (%) | (G vs. P) | (P vs. I) | (I vs. G) | |
Victim’s Sex Reports | N= | 41 | N= | 251 | N= | 7 | |||
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 |
N= | 45 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | ||||
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 |
Victim’s age group | N= | 42 | N= | 356 | N= | 17 | |||
Group 1 (0–4 years) | 8 | 19.05% | 66 | 19% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.053 | 0.936 | 0.050 |
Group 2 (>4–9 years) | 6 | 14.29% | 36 | 10% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.366 | 0.405 | 0.569 |
Group 3 (>9–14 years) | 2 | 4.76% | 27 | 8% | 5 | 29.41% | 0.008 | 0.506 | 0.002 |
Group 4 (>14–25 years) | 7 | 16.67% | 32 | 9% | 4 | 23.53% | 0.540 | 0.113 | 0.047 |
Group 5 (>25–35 years) | 2 | 4.76% | 25 | 7% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.859 | 0.582 | 0.857 |
Group 6 (>35–49 years) | 7 | 16.67% | 54 | 15% | 1 | 5.88% | 0.273 | 0.799 | 0.291 |
Group 7 (>49–64 years) | 4 | 9.52% | 58 | 16% | 2 | 11.76% | 0.000 | 0.253 | 0.620 |
Group 8 (≥65 years) | 6 | 14.29% | 58 | 16% | 3 | 17.65% | 0.745 | 0.738 | 0.883 |
N= | 45 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | ||||
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 |
Context-related characteristics of the victim | N= | 5 | N= | 113 | N= | 3 | |||
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% | ----- | ----- | ----- |
N= | 45 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | ||||
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 |
Educational level | N= | 0 | N= | 28 | N= | 0 | |||
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 | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
N= | 45 | N= | 280 | N= | 14 | ||||
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 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Barrios, C.L.; Aguirre, V.; Parra, A.; Pavletic, C.; Bustos-López, C.; Perez, S.; Urrutia, C.; Ramirez, J.; Fatjó, J. Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017. Animals 2021, 11, 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030893
Barrios CL, Aguirre V, Parra A, Pavletic C, Bustos-López C, Perez S, Urrutia C, Ramirez J, Fatjó J. Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017. Animals. 2021; 11(3):893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030893
Chicago/Turabian StyleBarrios, Carmen Luz, Valentina Aguirre, Alonso Parra, Carlos Pavletic, Carlos Bustos-López, Sandra Perez, Carla Urrutia, Josefa Ramirez, and Jaume Fatjó. 2021. "Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017" Animals 11, no. 3: 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030893
APA StyleBarrios, C. L., Aguirre, V., Parra, A., Pavletic, C., Bustos-López, C., Perez, S., Urrutia, C., Ramirez, J., & Fatjó, J. (2021). Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017. Animals, 11(3), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030893