No abstract

Dogs that participate in animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), often called 'therapy dogs', commonly interact with humans whose immune systems are not functioning optimally. The advisability of feeding raw meat (including poultry) to these animals remains a highly contentious issue, in spite of increasing evidence that raw meat is frequently contaminated with Salmonella. We set out to determine if consuming raw meat influences the risk of therapy dogs shedding Salmonella and other pathogens. Two hundred healthy therapy dogs from Ontario and Alberta were enrolled. Between May 2005 and November 2006, fecal specimens were collected from each dog every 2 months for 1 year, along with a log of places visited, antimicrobial use within the home, dog health status and diet. Specimens were cultured for Salmonella, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), extended-spectrum cephalosporinase (ESC) Escherichia coli and Clostridium difficile. Forty (20%) of the dogs were reported to have been fed raw meat at some point during the year. The incidence rate of Salmonella shedding in the raw meat-fed dogs was 0.61 cases/dog-year, compared with 0.08 cases/dog-year in dogs that were not fed raw meat (P<0.001). Controlling for therapy dog group, the repeated measures, and pig ear consumption and diarrhoea in the 2 months prior to specimen submission, dogs that consumed raw meat were significantly more likely to test positive for Salmonella at least once during the year than dogs that did not eat raw meat [odds ratio (OR) 22.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-58.8; P<0.001]. Specific Salmonella serovars were more common among dogs that consumed raw meat versus those that did not include S. Typhimurium, S. Heidelberg and S. Kentucky. Raw meat consumption was also significantly associated with shedding ESC E. coli (OR 17.2; 95% CI 9.4-32.3). No associations between C. difficile, MRSA or VRE and consumption of raw meat were detected. We recommend that dogs fed raw meat should be excluded from AAI programmes, particularly when the programmes involve interaction with humans at high risk of infection or adverse sequelae attributable to infection. Furthermore, although AAI dogs may not be representative of the general population of dogs, we also recommend that feeding of raw meat to dogs is to be avoided in homes where immunocompromised people live.

No abstract

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies; the use of deliberate challenge models in some trials and the common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies. KeywordsRandomized trials, livestock, challenge studies and standards RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. AbstractConcerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants...

No abstract