Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 26;13(12):e0208393.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208393. eCollection 2018.

The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark-A time series intervention study

Finn Nilson  1   2 , John Damsager  1 , Jens Lauritsen  3   4 , Carl Bonander  2   5
Affiliations

The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark-A time series intervention study

Finn Nilson et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

As dog bite injuries are a considerable problem in modern society, in order to reduce such injuries, breed-specific legislation has been introduced in a number of countries. Whilst many studies have shown a lack of effect with such legislation, the commonly used methodology is known to be flawed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the Danish breed-specific legislation on the number of dog bite injuries using more credible methods. A time series intervention method was used on a detailed dataset from Odense University Hospital, Denmark, regarding dog bite injuries presented to the emergency department. The results indicate that banning certain breeds has a highly limited effect on the overall levels of dog bite injuries, and that an enforcement of the usage of muzzle and leash in public places for these breeds also has a limited effect. Despite using more credible and sound methods, this study supports previous studies showing that breed-specific legislation seems to have no effect on dog bite injuries. In order to minimise dog bite injuries in the future, it would seem that other interventions or non-breed-specific legislation should be considered as the primary option.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Time series plots over the number of dog bite injuries per 6-month period and location, with predicted values and estimated effects.
(UI = Uncertainty interval).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Overall KL, Love M. Dog bites to humans—demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2001;218(12):1923–34. - PubMed
    1. Sacks JJ, Kresnow M-j, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury prevention. 1996;2(1):52–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kimble RM, Dallow N, Franklin R, Wallis B. Dog bites in Australian children. Medical journal of Australia. 2011;195(11/12):635–6. - PubMed
    1. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Stathakis V. Dog bite and injury prevention—analysis, critical review, and research agenda. Injury prevention. 2001;7(4):321–6. 10.1136/ip.7.4.321 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosado B, García-Belenguer S, León M, Palacio J. A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995–2004. The Veterinary Journal. 2009;179(3):383–91. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.02.002 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms