Cited by 81Human-Animal Interaction StudiesMusic Therapy and HealthPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Controlled clinical trial of canine therapy versus usual care to reduce patient anxiety in the emergency department

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Test if therapy dogs reduce anxiety in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: In this controlled clinical trial (NCT03471429), medically stable, adult patients were approached if the physician believed that the patient had "moderate or greater anxiety." Patients were allocated on a 1:1 ratio to either 15 min exposure to a certified therapy dog and handler (dog), or usual care (control). Patient reported anxiety, pain and depression were assessed using a 0-10 scale (10 = worst). Primary outcome was change in anxiety from baseline (T0) to 30 min and 90 min after exposure to dog or control (T1 and T2 respectively); secondary outcomes were pain, depression and frequency of pain medication. RESULTS: Among 93 patients willing to participate in research, 7 had aversions to dogs, leaving 86 (92%) were willing to see a dog six others met exclusion criteria, leaving 40 patients allocated to each group (dog or control). Median and mean baseline anxiety, pain and depression scores were similar between groups. With dog exposure, median anxiety decreased significantly from T0 to T1: 6 (IQR 4-9.75) to T1: 2 (0-6) compared with 6 (4-8) to 6 (2.5-8) in controls (P<0.001, for T1, Mann-Whitney U and unpaired t-test). Dog exposure was associated with significantly lower anxiety at T2 and a significant overall treatment effect on two-way repeated measures ANOVA for anxiety, pain and depression. After exposure, 1/40 in the dog group needed pain medication, versus 7/40 in controls (P = 0.056, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to therapy dogs plus handlers significantly reduced anxiety in ED patients.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0209232

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Resident or visiting dogs in prisons, nursing homes, mental institutions, and hospitals can reduce patient anxiety in a hospital emergency department, reduce pain perceptions in children after surgery, or calm young patients at a pediatric dental clinic.

    “Examples include resident or visiting dogs in prisons, nursing homes [33], mental institutions, and hospitals where they can reduce patient anxiety in a hospital emergency department [34], reduce pain perceptions in children after surgery [35], or calm young patients at a pediatric dental clinic [36].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kline, J. A., Fisher, M. A., Pettit, K. L., Linville, C. T., & Beck, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Eskenazi Health (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Kline, Jeffrey A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-01-09
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
e0209232
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2909054345
Cited by
68
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
therapy dogs, dog-assisted therapy, patient anxiety, emergency department patients, pain, depression, analgesic use, human-animal interaction, animal-assisted interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Anxiety, Depression, Dogs, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Prospective Studies, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Animal Assisted Therapy

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