EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 28 / No 3 (2022) J Oral Med Oral Surg, 28 3 (2022) 37 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 28, Number 3, 2022
Article Number 37
Number of page(s) 19
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2022021
Published online 23 September 2022

© The authors, 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Animals are an indispensable part of the human ecosystem. The animals might display many kinds of behavioral traits towards humans like loyalty, affection or aggression. Animal bite injuries in children of all ages represent an unsatisfactorily understood but significant medical and public health issue. Unaesthetic soft-tissue and skeletal injuries, scars and disfigurements are outcome of such incidents [1]. It is estimated that 50% of population in the United States experience an animal or human bite wound at least once in their lifetime, and 45% of children had been bitten during their lifetimes [2–4]. These types of injuries are ever-growing burden for public health, especially in developing and third world countries. Amongst bites caused by domestic animals, dog bites account 80–90% [5,6], whereas cat bites account for 5% and 15% [7,8], as second common cause. Children are especially susceptible to dog bite injuries of the head and neck region [4,9–12]. The kind of wounds afflicted span from insignificant scratches to fatal injuries and/or infections [13]. These injuries are considerably preventable by studying the attributes of the children who are traumatized, the characteristics of biting animals and the detailed features of biting incident. Accurate reporting of animal bites to authorities is important for framing appropriate prevention strategies, identifying the traumatic load and development of a more efficacious planning of resource allocation and to provide care [14–16]. Various studies have been conducted in different regions of the world to elucidate and characterize injuries resulting from animal-inflicted bites [17–20]. However, there are significant scientific controversies in literature, and no consensus on risk factors and optimal management. Therefore, this systematic review aims to explore the literature to understand the nature and severity of outcomes of bites from animals, and identify the risk factors for injuries among young victims of animal bite.

Method

Preliminary search

The databases PROSPERO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports and MEDLINE were searched and no systematic reviews (completed or in process) on this topic were identified.

Protocol and registration

The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and the Cochrane's Guidelines. The proposed systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under registration number # CRD42020177845.

The primary review question was, “What is the epidemiology of animal-inflicted injuries in children and associated risk factors?” PECO strategy as proposed by Maia and Antônio was followed instead of PICO [21]. The PECO used was Population (patients ≤ 19 years of age), Exposure (animal bite), Comparison (sociodemographic and bite wound characteristics) and Outcome (injury pattern and characteristics).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were observational studies (prospective studies, retrospective, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional) in which risk factors for animal bite in children and adolescents (≤19 years) were reported. There was no restriction of year, or publication status (Epub ahead of print). Exclusion criteria were: (1) review articles, opinion articles and single case reports; (2) studies with no apparent aim of studying risk factors for injuries caused by animals; (3) studies on adults with age >19 years and injuries caused by human bites; and (4) studies addressing other etiologies (e.g., interpersonal violence).

Sources of information and research

The primary study source, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Journals @ Ovid were used. The descriptors were searched in the MeSH database (Medical Subject Headings). With the help of the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”, the research strategy was developed. The keywords searched were (((((“maxillofacial injuries” OR ”facial injuries”))) AND ((”wounds and injuries” OR bites and stings OR trauma OR soft tissue injuries OR wounds OR lacerat* OR injuries OR wounds))) AND ((animal OR mammal* OR dog OR cat OR domestic OR non domestic OR pet OR stray OR wild))) AND ((infan* OR child* OR adolescen* OR pediatr* OR human)).

The search strategy was modified for each included information source. In addition, reference lists of literature, existing networks and websites, were scrutinized to enhance procurement of documents. Following initial search, all the citations were transferred to EndNote 9 (Clarivate Analytics) and duplicates were removed.

Selection of studies

To minimize inter-examiner variability, 2 reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to 20% of retrieved studies as calibration exercise and a good agreement level was achieved (x = 0.841). The studies were assessed in two main phases: (1) two reviewers (RS and NS) systematically analyzed titles and abstracts, and when they fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the review, articles were selected for the next phase and (2) full texts of eligible studies were obtained and evaluated. Reasons for exclusion of full text studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria were documented. Any disagreements between the reviewers during selection process were resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. The whole procedure was presented stepwise in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow chart.

Data collection and extraction process

Two evaluators (RS and NS) performed data extraction independently using a spreadsheet specially created to extract the necessary information including the following items: article identification (author, location, duration of study, source of information, type of study and case definition); victim characteristics (age and sex); causative animal characteristics (breed, familiarity, provoked/unprovoked) and results (area and types of injuries and months of year when incidence is at peak) and other relevant variables.

Methodological quality appraisal

After data extraction of all relevant articles, an objective appraisal process was initiated. The process of appraisal aims to assess the quality of the study by evaluating the design and methodology. The quality assessment of included studies were independently rated by two reviewers using an adapted version of the NIH Scale for case series and JBI prevalence critical appraisal tool having 7 questions, assigning Y/N/U (Yes/No/Unclear) for each question. The higher the score, the better was the methodological quality of the study.

Synthesis of result

The variability among studies was appraised by parameters such as the outcome analyzed, sample attributes, predictor measures, statistical tests and summary variables. This prevented the pooling of data for meta-analysis.

Results

Selected studies

A sum total of 924 potentially relevant articles were recognized. Of the 924 articles, 842 were excluded after the analysis of titles and abstracts. Full-text analysis was done for eighty two articles, out of which twenty nine were included in the systematic review according to the eligibility criteria. Figure 1 shows the stepwise process of searching, evaluation, inclusion and exclusion of articles.

thumbnail Fig. 1

PRISMA flowchart.

Characteristics of included studies

The prime characteristic features of eligible studies are summarized in Tables I–III. The time span assessed in the studies ranged from 1985 to 2017 [4,9,11,22–47]. Majority of the included studies in the review were retrospective studies except 4 studies (2 were prospective studies [11,25] and 2 were cross-sectional questionnaire-based surveys [38,43]). The animals involved in the biting episode were dogs in all the included studies. The male/female ratio ranged from 0.75:1 to 2.1:1. Most of the included studies depict males are more prone to animal bite injuries except only 3 studies which showed female preponderance [22,33,47]. The age range varies from 0 to 19 years with the mean age varying from 3.6 to 8 years [25,26]. The usual age in all studies analyzed corresponded to preschool and grade school children being the most affected group [22,24,25,27–33,37,40,43,46]. The list of breeds commonly causing ABI are given in Table II. Pitbulls, Rottweiler's, German shepherds, Bull terriers, Labradors and Dobermans were breeds with higher risk of attack. The animals were familiar to the victim (own, friends, neighbors) in 27–98% instances. Provocation was seen to be a risk factor for animal bite. Most cases of animal bite injuries were recorded during summer and spring months. Head and neck in younger children followed by extremities in older children was found to be the most inflicted area [22,24,25,27–33,37,46]. Among head and neck region, the area frequently involved was cheek region and lip/mouth. The type of wounds afflicted range from minor soft tissue scratches to life threatening injuries including severe nerve and vascular or bony destruction. Laceration wound was the most frequent soft tissue injury.

Table I

Demographic characteristics of patients included in studies.

Table II

Characteristics of animals included in studies.

Table III

Injury pattern and characteristics.

Risk of bias and methodological quality appraisal

The articles included in this review were observational studies, which may have led to publication bias. There may be geography-based bias, with most of the studies in the literature presenting data from western countries; thus not providing an accurate representation of global pediatric injuries inflicted by animals. In addition, bias may be caused by the articles that were excluded based on unavailability or non-English language.

The methodological quality appraisal of included studies using an adapted version of the NIH Scale for case series [50] and JBI prevalence critical appraisal tool revealed that most of the studies were of moderate quality (Tab. IV) [51].

Table IV

Methodological quality appraisal of included studies.

Discussion

A systematic review is the mainstay of evidence-based practice, commonly used for formulation of prevention and treatment guidelines and policies [52–56]. It objectively evaluates all available scientific evidence to answer a research query; and identify the sectors where evidence is deficient [54,57]. The present systematic review evaluated the scientific literature for risk factors of animal bite injuries in children and adolescents.

Animal aggression may be a result of interaction of several factors [58]. The study of individual factors, interrelationship between victim, animals and their environment is very complex [59], several confounding factors such as perception, risk taking and health care seeking behavior of an individual may be affected by past experiences, education and culture. A good quality research requires reliable and reproducible measurement of both the outcome and variables of the study [59]. There are many barriers in measuring outcomes as the number of reported injuries is low in comparison to actual incidence of animal bite injuries.

Young children below 5 years and male child seem more vulnerable to be attacked because of their underdeveloped motor skills [22,24,27–30,33,40,43,46]. Face especially lips, nose and cheeks, also referred to as ‘central target area’ is more prone, may be because of comparatively smaller body and larger head size [3,5,6,9,11,60–71]. Some investigators found higher prevalence of animal bite injuries in older children [25,31,32,37]. Evidence shows that risk of biting to both household and non-household members increases if a dog lives in a house with children or teenagers [59]. This area requires further research. Daniels et al. (2009) [31] and Thompson (1997) [62] found that death in younger children was result of damage to vital structures and the child's fragile skull [31,62]. In addition, younger children were more susceptible to sustain deep wounds rather than superficial scratches or lacerations [4,13,31]. Extremities; either the hands or lower limbs were more commonly bitten in older children [72–78]. Single bite wound was most frequently reported rather than multiple wounds which occurred in cases of severe mauling [4,79].

The upper age limit for inclusion in the study as pediatric population was not uniform in all the studies. Some included patients up to 15 years, whereas in some studies patients with age 17, 18 and 19 were included. This might have led to bias. Moreover, the categorization of the victims according to the age was variable, as some authors have categorized on the basis of age range and some have used the terminologies infant, pre-school, grade school and teenagers.

In order to report the injuries inflicted in different areas of body, few authors have divided the body parts as head & neck, upper and lower extremities and trunk/torso/chest whereas some have further subdivided head & neck into face, scalp, eye and neck. This led to inconsistencies while drawing conclusions from the data.

All the included studies in present systematic review reported dogs as the offending animals. No observational study reported any epidemiological data related to other animals. Also, the data pertaining to the unreported bite incidents were not apprehended. Discrepancies in health care seeking behavior and access to healthcare facilities are well recognized and affected by a number of factors, like severity of injury and risks posed, health beliefs and understanding [80–84]. Ignorance regarding appropriate treatment, its completion, vaccine was also implicated in the outcome.

No study included in present systematic review could establish high quality evidence regarding risk factors for animal aggression and none compared the risk across different groups. To establish a variable as a risk factor, a control or a comparator group is needed [59,85]. Comparison must be needed to isolate animals showing aggression from animals with no aggressive behaviour [86]. Also, comparison between characteristics of victims and non-affected population has to be included. None of the studies reaching the final review, examining the demographics of the target of aggression had a comparator group.

Pitbulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Bull terriers, Labradors and Dobermans were ranked as breeds with higher risk of attack [11,15,39,62,63,69]. Some breeds were considered to be more aggressive, indeed many breed specific legislations have been enacted [87–89]. However, the relationship between dog breed and aggression may be confounded by several factors [59]. Even the experienced personnel may misidentify certain breeds, particularly cross breeds, leading to behavioral and expectational implications [90]. The breeds bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier (also known as American pit bull terrier), and Staffordshire bull terrier are collectively referred to as “Pitbull” [91–93]. Misleading information perpetuated by media regarding dog breed also creates confusion [63]. Very few hospitalized cases reported or identified breed of the dog inflicting the injury [31,94–98]. Cognitive biases regarding a particular breed of dog causing serious injury may result in those recipients being more likely to attend for treatment [99].

Various authors have used variable terminologies like known/ unknown, familiar/ unfamiliar and pet/ non-pet to establish the relationship between the victim and the biting animal which created disparities while summarizing the data. Hence, uniformity in data during compilation of results could not be obtained. The events preceding the animal bite injuries which were considered as provoked incidents were not uniformly explained and demand a universally accepted definition. After reviewing all the articles, we propose, factors such as playing, teasing and feeding should be considered under the term “Provocation”. There is seasonal variation across different sub-continents with summer being the months of June, July and August in some parts of world while in others they occur during November, December and January. This could lead to bias in the registry database.

A lot of incongruity was observed in documentation of type and severity of injuries. The authors have used variable terminologies such as minor/major, mild/moderate/severe, laceration/abrasion/contusion/avulsion. Certain authors have used Injury severity score (ISS) and few used Lackmann's classification [48,49]. These classifications did not address the full spectrum of animal attack injuries. There is a need of a globally accepted classification system that will help to make consistent decisions regarding their management also. So, we are hereby proposing a new classification-“Singhal-Sikka Classification of Animal bite injuries” (Tab. V).

There is a need for development and maintenance of an online database for reporting animal inflicted injuries in all the countries of the world. Standardized methods for reporting animal bite are required. Similarly, standardized methods for measuring and reporting animals particularly dog populations are required. The patient registry database should follow a universally accepted animal bite injury reporting form to document an incident of animal attack. An animal bite injury reporting form for attending physician (Checklist 1) and a checklist for the authors while writing a paper on animal bite injuries (Checklist 2) for accurate compilation is hereby proposed in this article.

ANIMAL BITE INJURIES REPORTING FORM

Table V

Proposed Singhal-Sikka Classification of Animal bite injuries.

thumbnail
thumbnail
thumbnail

Checklist for the authors while writing a paper on animal bite injuries

Details of victims

Frequency

Age range and Mean age

Sex ratio

Locality: Urban/ Rural

Family characteristics: Joint Family/ Nuclear family/ Single parent

Case definition

Non case definition

Details of biting animal(s)

Species: Dog/ Cat/Monkey/Others

Sex ratio of biting animal: Male/ Female/ Unknown

Breed of the animal

Ownership of animal: Pet/ Stray/ Wild/Unknown

Vaccination status of animal: Yes/No/Not known

Neuter status: Yes/No/Not known

Current Location of the animal: Alive and in Quarantine/ Waiting to be tested/ Euthanized/ UnknownCircumstances of the injury

Location of incident

Familiarity of the victim with the biting animal: Familiar/ Nonfamiliar/ Unknown

Owner of the animal: Self/ Parent/ Relative/ Neighbor/ Friend/ No relation/ Not reported/ Other

Behavior of animal leading to the incident: Provoked/unprovoked/Sick/Unknown/Other

Most common time of year

Most common time of day

Time lag between the injury and presentation to the emergency services

Characteristics of the injury

Number of wounds: Single/Multiple

Anatomical site(s) involved: Head and Neck,Upper Limb, Lower Limb, Torso

Type of tissue(s) affected: Skin/ Muscle/ Tendon/ Nerve/ Vascular/ Bone

Severity of animal bite injuries: Grade I/ Grade II/ Grade III/ Grade IV/ Grade V

Management:

Self- toileting of the wound

Agents used for self-toileting of wound

Wound flushed at the hospital

Agent used for wound flushing

Suturing

Tetanus vaccine

Rabies vaccine

Antibiotic therapy

Dose, Frequency, Duration

Hospitalization

Average stay

Scarring

Permanent disability

Fatalities

Follow up

Psychological counselling

Have the victim or the caregiver ever received education on prevention of animal bite injuries

Design priorities in future research

Future research regarding animal bite injuries should follow good methodological standards that will help to provide strong evidence for development of preventive strategies. Studies comparing victims with a control or comparator group should be undertaken. Importance of educational interventions need to be supported and should be area of future research. Educational intervention regarding expected behavior of children in presence of animals and adequate supervision by parents/caregivers should be emphasized. These studies can focus on public awareness about such injuries and importance of timely intervention. Longitudinal prospective studies to establish relationship between behavior of animals and their confounders like their temperament and training may reduce the risk of animal biting trait. Reliable methods for accurate identification of dog breed should be established like an atlas, including photographs as well as size of particular breed need to be developed and validated internationally. Observational studies should follow multivariable analysis to control the effect of confounders. Studies should also identify barriers in implementation of preventive strategies like neutering, avoiding high risk breeds of pets and supervision in household with young children. A Standardized Checklist as proposed in this article for reporting animal inflicted injuries should be followed and validated internationally.

Why this paper is important?

Children are the most frequent victims of animal bite injuries. These injuries have a deep impact on social and psychological development of children.

Pediatric dentists can play an active role in early diagnosis, initial management and timely referral for proper treatment.

This paper provides an insight how pediatric dentists can impart anticipatory guidance to the patients and their families regarding risk factors of animal bite injuries and the behavioral response in case of an encounter.

Author contributions

R.S. and N.S. conceived the ideas; R.S. and N.S. collected the data; R.S. and N.S. analysed the data; and R.S., N.S.and R.N. led the writing.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

Informed consent

As it was a systematic review involving data from previously published scientific literature, informed consent from subjects was not required.

Ethical committee approval

Since the study involved retrospective collection of data of patients who had already been managed and their identity shall not be disclosed at any point of time, the ethical approval was not obtained.

Source of funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

References

  1. Sikka N, Jayam C, Choudhary RS, et al. Animal bite in a 6-month-old child and facial injury with associated unusual nasal injury: management of injuries along with 1-year follow-up. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12:560–565. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beck AM, Jones BA. Unreported dog bites in children. Public Health Rep 1985;100:315e21. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hoxworth RE. Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5-year review of the experience at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. PlastReconstr Surg 2009;124:559. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Schalamon J, Ainoedhofer H, Singer G, Petnehazy T, Mayr J, Kiss K, et al. Analysis of dog bites in children who are younger than 17 years. Pediatrics 2006;117:e374–e379. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015) Bites: Human and Animal. cks.nice.org.uk/biteshuman-and-animal (Last accessed: 8 March 2017). [Google Scholar]
  6. Murray GE. Examining evidence on dog bite injuries and their management in children. Nurs Children Young People 2017;29:35–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Yadav AK, Jaisani MR, Pradhan L, et al. Animal inflicted maxillofacial injuries: treatment modalities and our experience. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2017;16:356–364. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Esposito S, Picciolli I, Semino M, Principi N. Dog and cat bite-associated infections in children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013;32:971–976. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mcheik JN, Vergnes P, Bondonny JM. Treatment of facial dog bite injuries in children: a retrospective study. J Pediatr Surg 2000;35:580–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Calkins Casey M, et al. Life-threatening dog attacks: a devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries. J Pediatr Surg 2001;36:1115–1117. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eppley BL, Schleich AR. Facial dog bite injuries in children: treatment and outcome assessment. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:384–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kizer KW. Epidemiologic and clinical aspects of animal bite injuries. J Am Coll Emerg Phys 1979;8:134–141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Abuabara A. A review of facial injuries due to dog bites. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:E348–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Abedi M, Doosti-Irani A, Jahanbakhsh F, Sahebkar A. Epidemiology of animal bite in Iran during a 20-year period (1993–2013): a metaanalysis. Trop Med Health 2019;47:55. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Essig G, Sheehan C, Rikhi S, Elmaraghy C, Christophel JJ. Dog Bite injuries to the face: is there risk with breed ownership? a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 2019;182–188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Yardley AME, Hoskin AK, Hanman K, Hanman SL, Mackey DA. Animal-inflicted ocular and adnexal injuries in children: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 2015;60:536–546. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chapman S, Cornwall J, Righetti J, Sung L. Preventing dog bites in children: randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention. West J Med 2000;173:233e4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Duperrex O, Blackhall K, Burri M, Jeannot E. Education of children and adolescents for the prevention of dog bite injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD004726. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gilchrist J, Sacks JJ, White D, Kresnow MJ. Dog bites: still a problem? Inj Prev 2008;14:296e301. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Erickson BP, Feng PW, Liao SD, Modi YS, Ko AC, Lee WW. Dog bite injuries of the eye and ocular adnexa. Orbit 2018;38:43–50. [Google Scholar]
  21. Maia LC, Antonio AG. Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;37:117–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Abraham JT, Czerwinski M. Pediatric dog bite injuries in Central Texas. J Pediatr Surg 2019;54:1416–1420. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Akhtar N, Smith MJ, McKirdy S, Page RE. Surgical delay in the management of dog bite injuries in children, does it increase the risk of infection? J Plastic Reconstruct Aesthet Surg 2006;59:80–85. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Alizadeh K, Shayesteh A, Xu ML. An algorithmic approach to operative management of complex pediatric dog bites: 3-year review of a level I regional referral pediatric trauma hospital. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5:e1431. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Avner JA, Baker MD. Dog bites in urban children. Pediatrics 1991;88:55–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Bernardo LM, Gardner MJ, Amon N. Dog bites in children admitted the Pennsylvania trauma centers. Int J Trauma Nurs 1998;4:121–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Bernardo LM, Gardner MJ, O'Connor J, Amon N. Dog bites in children treated in a pediatric emergency department. J Soc Pediatric Nurs 2000;5:87–95. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Bernardo LM, Gardner MJ, Rosenfield RL, Cohen B, Pitetti R. A comparison of dog bite injuries in younger and older children treated in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2002;18:247–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Chen HH, Neumeier AT, Davies BW, Durairaj VD. Analysis of pediatric facial dog bites. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstruct 2013;6:225–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Chiam SC, Solanki NS, Lodge M, Higgins M, Sparnon AL. Retrospective review of dog bite injuries in children presenting to a South Australian tertiary children's hospital emergency department. J Paediatr Child Health 2014;50:791–794. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Daniels DM, Ritzi RBS, O'Neil J, Scherer LRT. Analysis of nonfatal dog bites in children. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care 2009;66:S17– S22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Dwyer JP, Douglas TS, van As AB. Dog bite injuries in children − a review of data from a South African paediatric trauma unit. S Afr Med J 2007;97:597–600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fein J, et al. Pediatric dog bites: a population-based profile. Inj Prev 2019;24:290–294 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Garvey EM, et al. Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: A case series at a level one pediatric trauma center. J Pediatr Surg 2015;50. DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.09.051 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Greenhalgh C, Cockington RA, Raftos J. An epidemiological survey of dog bites presenting to the Emergency Department of a Children's Hospital. J Paediatr Child Health 1991;27:171–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kasbekar AV, Garfit H, Duncan C, Mehta B, Davies K, Narasimhan G, Donne AJ. Dog bites to the head and neck in children; an increasing problem in the UK. Clin Otolaryngol 2013;38:248–274. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaye AE, Belz JM, Kirschner RE. Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5-year review of the experience at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:551. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kahn A, Bauche P, Lamoureux J. Child victims of dog bites treated in emergency departments: a prospective survey. Eur J Pediatr 2003;162:254–258. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lang ME, Klassen T. Dog bites in Canadian children: a five-year review of severity and emergency department management. Can J Emerg Med 2005;7:309–314. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McGuire C, Morzycki A, Simpson A, Williams J, Bezuhly M. Dog bites in children: a descriptive analysis. Plast Surg 2018;26:256–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mitchell RB, Nañez G, Wagner JD, Kelly J. Dog bites of the scalp, face, and neck in children. Laryngoscope 2003;113:492–495. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Monroy A, Behar P, Nagy M, Poje C, Pizzuto M, Brodsky L. Head and neck dog bites in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140:354–357. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reisner IR, Nance ML, Zeller JS, et al. Behavioural characteristics associated with dog bites to children presenting to an urban trauma centre. Injury Prevent 2011;17:348–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Speirs J, Showery J, Abdou M, Pirela-Cruz MA, Abdelgawad AA. Dog bites to the upper extremity in children. J Paediatr Child Health 2015;51:1172–1174. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sribnick EA, Sarda S, Sawvel MS, Reisner A, Chern JJ. Dog bite injuries in children: clinical implications for head involvement. Trauma 2016;0:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  46. Van As AB, Dwyer JP, Naidoo S. Dog bites to the head, neck and face in children. Southern Afr J Epidemiol Infect 2010;25:36–38. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wu PS, Beres A, Tashjian DB, Moriarty KP. Primary repair of facial dog bite injuries in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 2011;27:801–803. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Gennarelli TA, Woodzin E, editors. The Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005-update 2008 Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lackmann GM, Draf W, Isselstein G, Tollner U. Surgical treatment of facial dog bite injuries in children. J Cranio-maxillo-Facial Surg 1992;20:81–86. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. NIH scale for case series. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools [Google Scholar]
  51. JBI prevalence critical appraisal tool. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools [Google Scholar]
  52. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, http://www.sign.ac.uk/ Accessed:8 February 2010. -189 [Google Scholar]
  53. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine − Levels of Evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: University of Oxford, http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 Accessed: 9th April 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011). [Google Scholar]
  55. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke J, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004;328:39–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews BMJ Publishing Group, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  57. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic reviews in health care: a practical guide Cambridge University Press, 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, American Veterinary Medicine Association. A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention. J Am Veterin Med Assoc 2001;218:1732–1749. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Newman J. Human-directed dog aggression; a systematic review, Thesis June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  60. Agrawal A, Kumar P, Singhal R, Singh V, Bhagol A. Animal bite injuries in children: review of literature and case series. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10:67–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ullah F, Tahir M, Masoodurehman, Aslam M. Mammalian bite injuries to the head and neck region. J Coll Phys Surg Pak 2005;15:485–488. [Google Scholar]
  62. Thompson PG. The public health impact of dog attacks in a major Australian city. Med J Austr 1997;167:129–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Stathakis VZ. Dog bite and injury prevention − analysis, critical review, and research agenda. Inj Prev 2001;7:321–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Donkor P, Bankas DO. A study of primary closure of human bite injuries to the face. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:479–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Mendez Gallart R, Gomez Tellado M, Somoza Argibay I, Liras Munoz J, PaisPineiro E, Vela Nieto D. Dog bite-related injuries treated in a pediatric surgery department: analysis of 654 cases in 10 years. An Esp Pediatr 2002;56:425–429. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Scheithauer MO, Rettinger G. Bite injuries in the head and neck area. HNO 1997;45:891–897. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Borud LJ, Friedman DW. Dog bites in New York City PlastReconstr Surg 2000;106:987–990. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wei LA, Chen HH, Hink EM, Durairaj VD. Pediatric facial fractures from dog bites. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;29:179–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wolff KD. Management of animal bite injuries of the face: experience with 94 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:838–844. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Jaindl M, Grunauer J, Platzer P, et al. The management of bite wounds in children − a retrospective analysis at a level 1 trauma centre. Injury 2012;43;2117–2121. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Knobel DL, Cleaveland S, Coleman PG, Fevre EM, Meltzer MI, Miranda MEG, et al. Re-evaluating the burden of rabies in Africa and Asia. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83:360–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Hon KLE, Fu CCA, Chor CM, Tang PSH, Leung TF, Man CY, et al. Issues associated with dog bite injuries in children and adolescents assessed at the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2007;23:445–449. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Garcia VF. Animal bites and Pasturella infections. Pediatr Rev 1997;18:127–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Alabi O, Nguku PM, Chukwukere S, Gaddo A, Nsubuga P, Umoh J. Profile of dog bite victims in Jos plateau state, Nigeria: a review of dog bite records (2006–2008). Pan Afr Med J 2014;18:12–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  76. Maragliano L, Ciccone G, Fantini C, Petrangeli C, Saporito G, Di Traglia M, et al. Biting dogs in Rome (Italy). Int J Pest Manag 2007;53:329–334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. J Am Veter Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Stefanopoulos PK, Tarantzopoulou AD. Facial bite wounds: management update. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:464–472. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Lone KS, Bilquees S, Salimkhan M, Haq IU. Analysis of dog bites in Kashmir: an unprovoked threat to population. Natl J Commun Med 2014;5:66–68. [Google Scholar]
  80. Marmot MAJ, Goldblatt P, et al. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: A Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post- 2010. The Marmot Review (University College London, 2010), p. 88. http://www.marmotreview.org/ [Google Scholar]
  81. Morris S, Sutton M, Gravelle H. Inequity and inequality in the use of health care in England: an empirical investigation. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1251–1266. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Alberts JF, Sanderman R, Gerstenbluth I, van den Heuvel WJA. Sociocultural variations in help-seeking behavior for everyday symptoms and chronic disorders. Health Policy 1998;44:57–72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  83. Butchart A, Kruger J, Lekoba R. Perceptions of injury causes and solutions in a Johannesburg township: implications for prevention. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:331–344. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Simons J. in The Health Transition: Methods and Measures, edited by J. Cleland, A.G. Hill (Australian National University Press, 1991), pp. 103–114 [Google Scholar]
  85. Pfieffer D. Veterinary Epidemiology: An Introduction (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). [Google Scholar]
  86. Guy NC, et al. Risk factors for dog bites to owners in a general veterinary caseload. Appl Animal Behav Sci 2001;74:29–42. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  87. United Kingdom. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. (65/1991). Enacted 12th August 1991–129 [Google Scholar]
  88. Republic of Ireland. Control of Dogs Act, 1986. 1986. (32/1986). Enacted 17th December 1986–165 [Google Scholar]
  89. Germany. Dangerous Animals Act of Lower Saxony, Germany (GefTVO). 2000. Enacted 5th July 2000 −182 [Google Scholar]
  90. Voith VL. A comparison of visual and DNA identification of breeds in Annual American Veterinary Medicine Association Convention July 11-14 2009, Seattle, Washington, USA [Google Scholar]
  91. Lockwood R, Rindy K. Are “pit bulls” diVerent? An analysis of the pit bull terrier controversy. ANTHROZOÖS 1987;1:2–8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  92. Blackshaw JK. Dog bites and bull terriers. Aust Vet J 1991;68:117–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Magazanik M. RSPCA seeks tough controls on pit bulls. The Sunday Age 19 May 1996. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bini JK, Cohn SM, Acosta SM, McFarland MJ, Muir MT, Michalek JE. Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs. Ann Surg 2011;253:791. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Brogan TV, Bratton SL, Dowd MD, Hegenbarth MA. Severe dog bites in children. Pediatrics 1995;96:947–950. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Shields LB, Bernstein ML, Hunsaker 3rd JC, Stewart DM. Dog bite-related fatalities: a 15-year review of Kentuckymedical examiner cases. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2009;30:223–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Castrodale LJ. Hospitalizations resulting from dog bite injuries: Alaska, 1991–2002. Int J Circum Health 2007;66:320–327. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  98. Morales C, Falcon N, Hernandez H, Fernandez C. Dog bite accidents in a children hospital at Lima, Peru. Retrospective study from 1995–2009. Rev Peruana de Med Exp SaludPública 2011;28:639–642. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913–917. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table I

Demographic characteristics of patients included in studies.

In the text
Table II

Characteristics of animals included in studies.

In the text
Table III

Injury pattern and characteristics.

In the text
Table IV

Methodological quality appraisal of included studies.

In the text
Table V

Proposed Singhal-Sikka Classification of Animal bite injuries.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

PRISMA flowchart.
In the text
thumbnail
In the text
thumbnail
In the text
thumbnail
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.