The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of Disorders Recorded in Dogs Attending Primary-Care Veterinary Practices in England
Open accessAbstract
Purebred dog health is thought to be compromised by an increasing occurence of inherited diseases but inadequate prevalence data on common disorders have hampered efforts to prioritise health reforms. Analysis of primary veterinary practice clinical data has been proposed for reliable estimation of disorder prevalence in dogs. Electronic patient record (EPR) data were collected on 148,741 dogs attending 93 clinics across central and south-eastern England. Analysis in detail of a random sample of EPRs relating to 3,884 dogs from 89 clinics identified the most frequently recorded disorders as otitis externa (prevalence 10.2%, 95% CI: 9.1-11.3), periodontal disease (9.3%, 95% CI: 8.3-10.3) and anal sac impaction (7.1%, 95% CI: 6.1-8.1). Using syndromic classification, the most prevalent body location affected was the head-and-neck (32.8%, 95% CI: 30.7-34.9), the most prevalent organ system affected was the integument (36.3%, 95% CI: 33.9-38.6) and the most prevalent pathophysiologic process diagnosed was inflammation (32.1%, 95% CI: 29.8-34.3). Among the twenty most-frequently recorded disorders, purebred dogs had a significantly higher prevalence compared with crossbreds for three: otitis externa (P = 0.001), obesity (P = 0.006) and skin mass lesion (P = 0.033), and popular breeds differed significantly from each other in their prevalence for five: periodontal disease (P = 0.002), overgrown nails (P = 0.004), degenerative joint disease (P = 0.005), obesity (P = 0.001) and lipoma (P = 0.003). These results fill a crucial data gap in disorder prevalence information and assist with disorder prioritisation. The results suggest that, for maximal impact, breeding reforms should target commonly-diagnosed complex disorders that are amenable to genetic improvement and should place special focus on at-risk breeds. Future studies evaluating disorder severity and duration will augment the usefulness of the disorder prevalence information reported herein.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Approximate is Better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions
Agresti, A., & Coull, B. A. (1998) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1998.10480550 · Cited by 3,223
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research
Dohoo, I. R., Martin, S. W., & Stryhn, H. (2009) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,034
Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how?
Bender, R., & Lange, S. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00314-0 · Cited by 3,004
Kirkwood, B. R., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2014) · Bristol Research (University of Bristol) · Cited by 2,820
Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea
Royston, P., Altman, D. G., & Sauerbrei, W. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2331 · Cited by 2,312
Inflammation 2010: New Adventures of an Old Flame
Medzhitov, R. (2010) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.006 · Cited by 1,834
Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods.
Aickin, M., & Gensler, H. (1996) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.86.5.726 · Cited by 1,346
Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?
Feise, R. J. (2002) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-8 · Cited by 1,299
A data structure for dynamic trees
Sleator, D. D., & Tarjan, R. E. (1983) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/0022-0000(83)90006-5 · Cited by 1,018
Muller and Kirk's Small Animal Dermatology
Muller, G. H., Kirk, R. W., Miller, W. H., Griffin, C. E., & CAMPBELL, K. L. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 881
Cited by
Weiss, T. L., Young, E. J., & Ducat, D. C. (2017) · Metabolic Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2017.10.009 · Cited by 152
Canine and feline obesity: A One Health perspective
Sandøe, P., Palmer, C., Corr, S., Astrup, A., & Bjørnvad, C. R. (2014) · Veterinary Record · doi:10.1136/vr.g7521 · Cited by 106
O’Neill, D. G., Lee, M. M., Brodbelt, D. C., Church, D. B., & Sanchez, R. F. (2017) · Canine Genetics and Epidemiology · doi:10.1186/s40575-017-0045-5 · Cited by 102
Self-citationChastant‐Maillard, S., Guillemot, C., Feugier, A., Mariani, C., Grellet, A., & Mila, H. (2017) · Reproduction in Domestic Animals · doi:10.1111/rda.12845 · Cited by 54
Brand, C. L., O’Neill, D. G., Belshaw, Z., Pegram, C. L., Stevens, K. B., & Packer, R. M. A. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12050629 · Cited by 43
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- O′Neill, D. G., Church, D. B., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C., & Brodbelt, D. C.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-03-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e90501
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014425624
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 30.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of Disorders Recorded in Dogs Attending Primary-Care Veterinary Practices in England. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0090501
- The paper
- O′Neill, D. G., Church, D. B., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C., & Brodbelt, D. C. (2014). Prevalence of Disorders Recorded in Dogs Attending Primary-Care Veterinary Practices in England. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.