Breed and Human Directed Aggressive Behaviour in Dogs Rachel

Meta-analysis, Newman 2012

Statistical Analysis Method of Risk EvaluationFormulaExamples Bite Risk Index (BRI) or Relative risk (Representation Ratio) Schalamon 2006 Fatjo et al 2007 Cornelissen & Hopster 2010 Thompson 1997 Risk Ratio Schuler 2008 Population Attribution Fraction (PAF) or similar Szpakowski 1989 (also used relative risk figures) Rosado et al 2009 Chi Square - Blackshaw 1991 De Keuster et al 2006 Gershman et al 1994 Ranking - Duffy 2008 Odds Ratios Horisberger et al 2004 Messam 2008 Bollen and Horowitz 2008 (within a logistic regression) Casey et al 2013 (within a logistic regression) Casey et al 2014 (within a logistic regression) Hsu and Sun 2010 (within a logistic regression) Descriptive Statistics Only Borchelt 1983 Beaver 1983 Sacks et al 2000 Wright and Nesselrote 1987 Bites/Aggressive dogs No Bites/Non- Aggressive dogs Total Specific Breedaby All Other Breedscdz Totalwxo

BreedPNPTotalRisk IndexRisk RatioOdds Ratio Fisher’s Exact P Value Index95% CIP valueRatio95% CIP ValueRatio95% CIP value Border Collie * *.0394* Border Terrier Collie (Rough) German Shepherd Dog Greyhound Miniature Schnauzer * * *.0044 ** Retriever (Golden) Ɨ *.0016 ** Retriever (Labrador) * * *.0521 Ɨ Spaniel (Cocker) Spaniel (English Springer) Staffordshire Bull Terrier ** West Highland White Terrier Yorkshire Terrier Mixed Breed Unidentified Breed * Other Breeds Reference Total P values in bold indicate significant Positive or Negative relationships between breed and HDAB

Sporting Hound Herding Terrier Toy Non-Sporting Working Gundog Hound Pastoral Terrier Toy Utility Working Retrievers, Flushing Dogs and Water Dogs Scent hounds Sheepdogs and Cattle Dogs Terriers, Dachshunds Spitz and Primitive Types Companion and Toy Dogs Sight hounds Pinschers, Schnauzers, Molossoids and Swiss Mountain Dogs Pointers and Setters

Ancient ClusterMastiff ClusterHerding ClusterModern Hunting Cluster Shiba InuLabrador retrieverLhasa apsoSaluki Chow chowPresa canario-SamoyedTibetan terrier AkitaRottweilerPekingeseKomondor Alaskan malamuteBullmastiffShih tzuStandard poodle BasenjiNewfoundlandIrish wolfhoundBichon frise Chinese shar-peiGerman shepherd dogSaint BernardManchester terrier Siberian huskyFrench bulldogGreyhoundNorwegian elkhound Afghan houndMiniature bull terrierBelgian sheepdogKuvasz BulldogBelgian tervurenGreat dane BoxerBorzoiWelsh springer spaniel MastiffCollieDoberman pinscher Bernese mountain dogShetland sheepdogStandard schnauzer Greater swiss mountain dogPugItalian greyhound WhippetOld English sheepdog KeeshondAmerican water spaniel Irish terrier Genomic Clusters, Parker 2004

No statistically significant difference in ratio of NP to P dogs between genetic breed clusters (X2(3)=.271, p=.965) UK KC Breed GroupsMean Rank Score Gundogs26.0 Hounds32.8 Pastoral Breeds42.3 Terrier Breeds22.7 Toy Breeds31.1 Utility Breeds29.7 Working Breeds34.6 Genomic ClusterMean Rank Score Ancient Cluster34.0 Mastiff Cluster33.0 Herding Cluster31.0 Modern Hunting Cluster31.0 Comparing Breed Groups No statistically significant difference in ratio of NP to P dogs between UK Kennel Club breed groupings (X2(6)=6.434, p=.376)

Breed is not Static

In Summary – Key Points 1.No reliable evidence to suggest that any breed is more risky than others. Available evidence is not sufficient to support Breed Specific Legislation such as the UK Dangerous Dogs Act Higher quality evidence is required, such as well conducted case- control studies. Until this is available, proceed with caution when interpreting and comparing results of cross sectional surveys that use different methods of risk evaluation. 3.Genomic clusters are likely to be a more useful grouping system than kennel club groups is some contexts. 4.Dog breed is by no means a static factor, which may account for some differences between studies

Contact Rachel