Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40804952›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Review of Collars, Harnesses, and Head Collars for Walking Dogs.

Camila Cavalli, Alexandra Protopopova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Camila CavalliAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7128-7721
Alexandra ProtopopovaAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9992-3101

Funding

Vancouver Foundation FO122-13648; GR025974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As dogs are often required to be leashed in public, guardians need to choose between various restraint devices. While using collars typically considered aversive (such as choke, prong, or electric collars) is generally discouraged due to welfare concerns, guidance is less clear when it comes to selecting among other devices such as collars, harnesses, and head collars. This review examined 21 full-text articles and two abstracts on the effects of commonly used restraint devices, aiming to offer practical guidance for guardians and identifying areas for future research. The impact of these devices was examined in terms of walking kinematics, pressure distribution on the body, and behavioural signs of stress. The findings suggest there is no one-size-fits-all device, and selection should consider the individual needs of guardian and dog. For dogs that pull, non-tightening front-clip harnesses appear to offer the best balance between discomfort and reduction in pulling. Tightening harnesses, martingale collars, and head collars can pose greater discomfort and should be used with caution. For brachycephalic breeds or when pulling is not a concern, back-clip harnesses are suitable, especially chest-strap or Y-shaped ones. Flat collars are also appropriate for dogs that do not pull as they produce the least body restriction.

Indexed as

collardog walkingharnesshead collarhead halterleashmartingale collarrestraint devices

Identifiers

PMID40804952
PMCPMC12345489

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.