Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41897870›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

The Use of Structured Professional Judgement: A New Way to Understand and Assess Bite Risk from Dogs.

Todd E Hogue, Helen Howell, Ann Baslington-Davies, Daniel S Mills

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Todd E HogueSchool of Psychology, Sport Science and Wellbeing, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1892-4223
Helen HowellSchool of Psychology, Sport Science and Wellbeing, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-8133-207X
Ann Baslington-DaviesDepartment of Life Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7DL, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-0315-8440
Daniel S MillsDepartment of Life Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7DL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4765-9625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dog bite incidents constitute significant public health, animal welfare, and economic concerns with substantial physical and psychological consequences for victims. Despite legislative responses, research indicates that breed-focused interventions are ineffective in reducing dog bite risk. Human behaviour, caregiving practices, and environmental context all play central roles in the expression of human-directed canine aggression. Current methods of assessing dog bite risk remain largely unstructured, dog-centred, and reliant on subjective judgement and provocative behavioural testing. These approaches exhibit limited predictive validity and poor reliability, and are vulnerable to bias, raising serious concerns for public safety, judicial fairness, and animal welfare. Comparable challenges in human violence risk assessment led to the development of an evidence-based structured professional judgement (SPJ) assessment framework, which combines empirical risk factors with individualised case formulation and dynamic risk management. An SPJ framework for dog bite risk would ensure the systematic consideration of empirically supported static and dynamic risk factors relating to the dog, caregivers, and related environmental conditions, while supporting the development of targeted risk reduction strategies. Conclusion: Developing an SPJ approach offers a more scientifically grounded, ethically defensible, and prevention-focused method for managing dog bite risk, with potential benefits for public safety, animal welfare, and professional practice.

Indexed as

aggressiondogdog biteshuman directed dog aggression (HDDA)professional practiceriskrisk assessmentstructured professional judgement (SPJ)

Identifiers

PMID41897870
PMCPMC13023311

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.