ArticleVeterinary record open2026
Exploring veterinarian and pet owner perspectives on the risk of antimicrobial resistance when feeding raw meat diets to dogs.
Article in Veterinary record open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The feeding of raw meat diets (RMDs) to dogs has become increasingly popular in the UK in recent years. A major concern surrounding RMDs is the potential risks to humans and animals posed by the presence of potentially pathogenic bacteria, particularly for transmission of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria. Objectives: This study explores how veterinary professionals and owners conceptualise and communicate about the risk of AMR bacteria in RMDs. Methods: Focus groups and discussion forum data were used to explore veterinarian, nurse and dog owner views on the risk of AMR bacteria in RMDs. Six focus groups (three veterinary professionals and three dog owners) were conducted; additionally, 34 open-access discussion forum threads around RMDs were collected. All data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Results highlight that bacterial load (and therefore, potential for AMR) was perceived as a potential risk by participants from all groups, yet was generally considered less important than other concerns, such as nutrition. Veterinary professionals were concerned about AMR, and perceived issues, which could lead to the introduction of AMR bacteria at many stages of the production system. Raw-feeding dog owners placed greater trust than veterinary professionals in the processes of diet creation and their dog's immune systems to manage those risks. Conclusions: This study will help dog health professionals and dog owners alike in reconciling communication between pro-raw, neutral and cooked food feeders. Additionally, we identify that increased rigour in raw meat production systems could better protect consumers and public health.
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.