ArticleJournal of trauma and injury2025
Infection prevention and treatment following dog bites: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Journal of trauma and injury, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence, Prevalence, and Risk Factors of Dog Bites in Pediatric Populations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDog bites pose a significant global public health challenge, with outcomes that range from minor injuries to fatalities. Despite their prevalence, no consensus has been established regarding the most effective prevention and treatment strategies. This systematic review aimed to consolidate and evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of interventions in preventing and treating dog bites.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across the CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PubMed databases for RCTs published within the last 10 years. Studies were included if they focused on interventions to prevent or treat dog bites. Primary outcomes included the infection rate and recovery time of dog bites, the effectiveness of interventions in preventing or reducing bite severity, and associated health outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
resultsFive RCTs met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,148 participants. These studies examined various interventions, including medical techniques (medical glue, negative pressure wound therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), wound management strategies (primary suturing versus non-suturing), and educational interventions. A meta-analysis of four studies revealed no significant difference in infection rates between the intervention and control groups (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.77; I2=62%; P=0.44). However, the interventions examined in each study demonstrated shorter recovery times (mean difference, 11.25 days; 95% CI, 8.44-14.07 days; I2=99%; P<0.001).
conclusionsAlthough the included studies suggest potential benefits of certain interventions in treating dog bites, particularly in reducing recovery time, the evidence regarding infection prevention remains inconclusive. The limited number of high-quality RCTs in this field highlights the need for further research to establish evidence-based guidelines for dog bite prevention and treatment.
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.