Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34552977›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Dog Pulling on the Leash: Effects of Restraint by a Neck Collar vs. a Chest Harness.

Hao-Yu Shih, Clive J C Phillips, Daniel S Mills, Yifei Yang, Fillipe Georgiou, Mandy B A Paterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review of Collars, Harnesses, and Head Collars for Walking Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Hao-Yu ShihSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia.
Clive J C PhillipsCurtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Bentley, WA, Australia.
Daniel S MillsSchool of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.
Yifei YangSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia.
Fillipe GeorgiouSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Mandy B A PatersonSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leash pulling is a concern for dog owners and can be detrimental to the health and welfare of dogs. Neck-collars and back-connection harnesses are popular restraint types. Harnesses have been proposed as a better and more considerate option for canine health and welfare. Anecdotally, dogs pull more when wearing a back-connection harness; however, there is no scientific evidence for this perception. This study aimed to investigate how strongly dogs pull on the lead to achieve a food treat or toy under restraint by a neck-collar versus a back-connection harness. A within-subject counterbalanced design was used for the study, involving 52 shelter dogs. A customised canine leash tension metre was connected to the collar or harness to record the pulling of the dogs, including measuring the maximal and mean leash tension, and the time spent pulling. In addition, dog behaviours were recorded using two cameras from two separate directions. The maximal and mean leash tension and the pulling time were greater under restraint by harness when attracting dogs with food treats. No significant difference between harness and collar was found in potential stress-related behaviours (e.g. tail and ear positions, lip-licking, and panting). However, dogs looked at the experimenter more often when restrained by harness than collar in the food treat attraction test. No significant difference was detected between harness and collar with respect to leash tension and stress-related behaviours in the toy attraction test. These findings suggest that dogs tend to pull stronger and more steadily when wearing a back-connection harness compared to a neck collar to reach the food treat but not the toy.

Indexed as

collardogfoodharnessleashpulltensiontoy

Identifiers

PMID34552977
PMCPMC8450523

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.