Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581668›Full record

ArticleCanine medicine and genetics2022

Health of Pug dogs in the UK: disorder predispositions and protections.

Dan G O'Neill, Jaya Sahota, Dave C Brodbelt, David B Church, Rowena M A Packer, Camilla Pegram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canine medicine and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A new future for dog breeding.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Dermatological Problems of Brachycephalic Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dan G O'NeillPathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK. doneill@rvc.ac.uk.
Jaya SahotaPathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK.
Dave C BrodbeltPathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK.
David B ChurchClinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK.
Rowena M A PackerClinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK.
Camilla PegramPathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK.
Royal Veterinary College · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPugs are a brachycephalic dog breed that has become phenomenally popular over recent decades. However, there is growing concern about serious health and welfare issues in the breed. To augment the evidence-base on the comparative health of Pugs, this study aimed to compare the odds of common disorders between Pugs and all remaining dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK during 2016. A cross-sectional study design of VetCompass clinical records was used to estimate the one-year (2016) period prevalence for the disorders most commonly diagnosed in Pugs and non-Pugs. Risk factor analysis applied multivariable logistic regression modelling methods to compare the odds of 40 common disorders between Pugs and non-Pugs.

resultsFrom a study population of 905,544 dogs, the analysis included random samples of 4308 Pugs and 21,835 non-Pugs. Pugs were younger (2.36 years, range 0.07-16.24 vs 4.44 years, range 0.01-20.46, p <  0.001) and lighter (8.95 kg, range 5.00-13.60 vs. 14.07 kg, range 1.41-85.00, p <  0.001) than non-Pugs. Pugs had 1.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 2.01) times the adjusted odds of diagnosis with ≥1 disorder than non-Pugs. Pugs had significantly increased adjusted odds for 23/40 (57.5%) common disorders. These included: brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (odds ratio [OR] 53.92; 95% CI 36.22 to 80.28), stenotic nares (OR 51.25; 95% CI 24.93 to 105.37) and corneal ulceration (OR 13.01; 95% CI 10.50 to 16.11). Conversely, Pugs had significantly reduced adjusted odds of 7/40 (17.5%) common disorders compared to non-Pugs. These included: heart murmur (OR 0.23; 95% 0.13 to 0.14), lipoma (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55) and aggression (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.47).

conclusionsThe current study highlights that predispositions outnumber protections between Pugs and non-Pugs for common disorders, suggesting some critical health welfare challenges to overcome for Pugs. Highly differing heath profiles between Pugs and other dogs in the UK suggest that the Pug has diverged substantially from mainstream dog breeds and can no longer be considered as a typical dog from a health perspective.

Indexed as

BreedDogElectronic patient recordEpidemiologyEPRPedigreePrimary-carePugPurebredVetCompassVeterinary

Identifiers

PMID35581668
PMCPMC9115981
OpenAlexW4280566299

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.