Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain, between the Years 2013 and 2017

Abstract

Dog bites are a major public health problem, with consequences such as physical injury, psychological trauma, transmission of zoonoses, infections, and economic costs. For this reason, it is necessary to develop preventive programs, which require quality information to support the authorities’ decision-making and to raise public awareness about the application of the proposed measures. The objective of this review was to analyze the press, indexed and gray dog bite literature published during the 2013–2017 period. During that period, 385 articles from three sources of information were analyzed: Press literature, scientific literature, and gray literature. Of these, the greatest amount of information corresponding to the context and the aggressor animal was found in the press literature, where it was recorded that the greatest number of records reported in the Chilean articles were caused by potentially dangerous breeds (87.50%), having significant differences with the gray literature (p = 0.030), and in Spain, the greatest number of attacks was also made by potentially dangerous dogs 91.30% (21/23), statistically significant differences with the gray literature (p = 0.002) and with the indexed (p < 0.001). In the case of the scientific and gray literature, the greatest amount of information was found about the victim of the attack and the treatments applied to them. In these cases, the highest percentage of victims included in the reports contained both sexes for the two literatures (44.62% and 87.71%, respectively). Regarding the treatment applied, in the scientific literature in most of the reports, the patients received washings, rabies vaccine, and tetanus vaccine (46.26%) and presented significant differences in Chile with the information contained in the gray literature (p = 0.023), in Spain with the gray (p = 0.017) and with the press (p = 0.023). In conclusion, the press literature differs in multiple variables with the information reported in the scientific literature and, in some cases, with the gray literature. The reason why the material that is being distributed to the population would not coincide in multiple relevant variables in other literature and the representative reality of the problem is the basis for this topic.