ArticleBMJ open2019
Characteristics and factors associated with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment of dog and cat bites among left-behind children: a cross-sectional study in two cities of China.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mixed-methods study of community dog management and rabies awareness in Thailand.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Delayed Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Dog Bite Victims in Nyagatare District, Rwanda, 2017 to 2019.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2023Article
- Dog bite Emergency department presentations in Brisbane metro south: Epidemiology and exploratory medical geography for targeted interventions.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Delays in initiating rabies post-exposure prophylaxis among dog bite victims in Wakiso and Kampala districts, Uganda.AAS open research · 2021Article
- Spatial Inequality Hides the Burden of Dog Bites and the Risk of Dog-Mediated Human Rabies.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Epidemiological study on animal bite cases referred to Haji Daii health Center in Kermanshah province, Iran during 2013-2017.BMC public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnimal injury is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Dog bites account for tens of millions of injuries annually and the highest risk is among children. However, children may not receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment timely and appropriately after rabies exposure. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics and factors associated with PEP treatment of dog and cat bites among left-behind children.
designA cross-sectional study using questionnaire was conducted in primary and high schools.
settingShenzhen and Shantou cities, Guangdong Province, China.
participantsA total of 9380 participants were included and 2236 of them were with a history of dog and cat bites.
results1188 (53.1%) boys and 1048 (46.9%) girls suffered from animal bites. Bitten in holidays was less likely to receive PEP treatment (OR 0.512, 95% CI 0.377 to 0.695) than those bitten in school days. Bitten while being with family (OR 1.418, 95% CI 1.040 to 1.934) and bitten at roadside (OR 1.842, 95% CI 1.297 to 2.171), bitten by unvaccinated animals (OR 1.745, 95% CI 1.246 to 2.443) tended to receive PEP treatment. Compared with unbroken skin, bleeding (OR 1.789, 95% CI 1.165 to 2.745) and laceration (OR 3.834, 95% CI 2.310 to 6.366) were showed as treatment prompting factors.
conclusionsBitten in holidays was found as a risk factor of receiving PEP treatment of animal bites. Certain measures should be taken to raise left-behind children's awareness of receiving PEP treatment timely and appropriately after dog and cat bites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.