Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33354417›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Insights into dog owner perspectives on risks, benefits, and nutritional value of raw diets compared to commercial cooked diets.

Alysia Empert-Gallegos, Sally Hill, Philippa S Yam

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Dog and owner demographics impact dietary choices in Dog Aging Project cohort.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alysia Empert-Gallegos *School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences (MVLS), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Sally Hill *School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences (MVLS), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Philippa S YamSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences (MVLS), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe practice of feeding a raw meat-based diet (RMBD) to dogs is a topic of increasing interest to owners and veterinary professionals alike. Despite the research around the practice, particularly about the risk of nutritional imbalances and microbial contamination, an increasing number of dog owners are adopting a raw diet for their dogs. This study expands the research into owner motivations for feeding RMBDs and cooked diets and asks them their opinions about risk and nutritional value.

methodsAn anonymized, online, internationally accessible questionnaire was developed to ascertain owner perspectives on the risks, benefits, and nutritional value of commercially prepared and homemade RMBDs as compared with commercially prepared cooked diets (CCDs).

resultsThe questionnaire was completed by 419 dog owners of diverse backgrounds across the world. Of the participants, 25.3% fed RMBDs. Just over 70.0% of all participants had spoken to their veterinarian about their dog's nutrition. Owners who fed RMBDs ranked their veterinarian's knowledge lower and their own knowledge of canine nutrition higher than owners who fed CCDs. They rated commercial and homemade RMBDs as highly nutritious 83.5% and 73.6% of the time, respectively, while only 12.5% rated CCDs as highly nutritious. Owners who fed CCDs ranked RMBDs as highly nutritious less often, but also only ranked CCDs as highly nutritious 52.7% of the time. All participants agreed that CCDs were low risk to human health. Owners who fed RMBDs ranked raw diets as highly risky to human or dog health under 20.0% of the time but deemed CCDs risky to animal health over 65.0% of the time. When asked about benefits of raw diets, the most repeated words offered by owners were "health", "better", "coat" and "teeth". The most repeated risks presented were "bacteria", "nutrition", "risk" and "Salmonella". Owners who fed RMBDs tended to use vague terminology like "health" and "better" when asked why they fed a raw diet. Owners who did not feed RMBDs used more specific terminology like "expensive", "time" and "risk" when asked why they did not feed a raw diet. Overall, the two groups differed in their perceptions around RMBD and CCD feeding, which highlights the need for a better line of communication and education between veterinarians and owners.

Indexed as

BenefitsCanineDietDogMeatOwnerRawRisksRMBDSurvey

Identifiers

PMID33354417
PMCPMC7731655
OpenAlexW3112176445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.