Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Are Dogs That Are Fed from a Raised Bowl at an
Increased Risk of Gastric Dilation Volvulus Compared
with Floor-Fed Dogs?
A Knowledge Summary by
Louise Buckley PhD RVN 1*
1 Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport TF10 8NB
* Corresponding Author (lbuckley@harper-adams.ac.uk)
ISSN:
2396-9776
Published:
2017
in:
Vol 2, Issue 1
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
Reviewed by:
Wanda Gordon-Evans (DVM, PhD, DACVS) and
Bruce Smith (BVSc, MS, FANZCVS, DACVS)
Next Review Date:
20 Jan 2019
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 2
total pages: 10
KNOWLEDGE SUMMARY
Question
Are dogs that are fed from a raised bowl at an increased risk of gastric dilation volvulus (GDV) compared with
dogs that are fed from a bowl on the floor?
Clinical Scenario
Raised feeding bowls are available commercially and are sometimes recommended by veterinary nurses to
assist elderly arthritic dogs to comfortably access their feed ration. A client with an elderly dog is attending a
senior wellbeing clinic and asks for advice on whether they should use one of these feeders. The dog is a
large or giant breed dog of the type at increased risk of developing a gastric dilation volvulus.
The Evidence
The literature searches uncovered two papers (Glickman et al. 2000; Pipan et al. 2012) that directly
addressed the PICO question. Of these, one of the studies (Pipan et al., 2012) found no significant effect of
feeder height on risk of having a GDV episode. One paper (Glickman et al., 2000) found that dogs that were
fed from a raised bowl were significantly more likely to present at a clinic with a GDV episode. However, the
height of the bowl that increased the risk differed according to whether the dog was a large or giant breed.
No studies found a decreased risk of GDV as a consequence of feeding a dog from a raised bowl.
Summary of the evidence
1. Glickman (2000)
Population:
Dogs (male, female, neutered and entire) from eleven different large
and giant dog breeds (Akita, Bloodhound, Collie, Great Dane, Irish
Setter, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland, Rottweiler, Saint Bernard,
Standard Poodle, and Weimaraner), that were located within the
USA. Dogs were required to be at least 6 months old and not to have
a medical history that included an episode of GDV before the study
commenced.
Sample size:
1637 (large breeds: n= 894; giant breeds: n = 743):
Clinical bottom line
There are only two studies that study the effect of raised feeders on the risk of Gastric Dilatation Volvulus
(GDV) and their findings conflict. Only one study found a significant effect of feeder height, with large and
giant breeds fed from a raised feeder being at an increased risk of GDV floor fed dogs. However, these
authors found that, where the feeder was raised, the height of the feeder that increased the GDV risk was
affected by the size of the dog. Large breed dogs were more likely to develop a GDV if fed from a bowl ≤
1 foot tall, whereas giant breed dogs were more likely to develop a GDV if fed from a bowl > 1 foot tall.
No studies found that feeding from a raised feeder reduced the risk of GDV relative to feeding from the
floor. Therefore, the safest option in the absence of further evidence is to advise that owners of ‘at risk’
dogs feed from a feeder on the floor. This may not reduce the risk of GDV, but there is no evidence to
suggest that it will increase the risk.
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 3
total pages: 10
Dogs that developed a GDV during the course of the study:
98
Dogs that did not develop a GDV during the course of the
study: 1539
Nb. This study was derived from a larger prospective cohort study
carried out by the authors. 1991 dogs initially enrolled on this study;
however, for inclusion in the current study, dogs needed to be 6
months or older, and owners needed to have provided vital status
information (undefined in the paper) and have completed the
detailed questionnaire initially sent out to owners.
Intervention details:
The study began in June 1994 and ended in February 1999.
Therefore, the maximum possible period that a dog could be studied
for was 58 months.
Dogs were recruited through breed clubs and dog shows. At the start
of the study, owners were asked about the presence of GDV in the
medical history of the dog or any of its first-degree relatives. The dog
was physically assessed for body condition and temperament, and
conformational measurements taken.
Within thirty days of recruitment, owners were provided with a
detailed questionnaire to complete that provided data on the dog’s
GDV history (if positive, the dog was excluded), breeding, medical
history, reproductive status, personality and temperament, and
dietary factors.
Owners were instructed to notify the researchers if any of the
following outcomes occurred:
The dog developed a GDV (if so, the researcher confirmed
this with the veterinarian who treated the dog)
The dog died of another cause
The ownership of the dog was transferred to another person
Owners were contacted in 1997, 1998, and 1999 to find out if, over
the duration of the study, their dog had developed a GDV and if so,
whether the dog died or survived.
This was the methodology for the original prospective cohort study
by the authors (referred to above). Dogs from that study were
included only if:
The initial questionnaire had been fully completed
There was at least one follow up set of data for that dog
7% of the owners in this study fulfilled both criterion for
inclusion (n = 1660)
4% of these owners were excluded because their dog was
less than 6 months old at the point of completing the initial
questionnaire, leaving 1637 (82.2% of the original sample)
available for analysis in this study.
Of these dogs, the median duration during which the dogs were
followed up was 2.4 years (Max: 4.8 months; minimum: no stated).
The reasons for loss to follow – up (other than death) are not stated.
182 dogs died during this period: 29 died due to the GDV episode, 24
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 4
total pages: 10
died for unknown reasons. 55 are reported to have died from other
medical problems. 74 dogs are not accounted for in the figures
reported.
Study design:
Prospective cohort study
Outcome studied:
The outcome measure was whether the dog developed an episode
of GDV during the course of the study and whether it survived this
episode. The study then looked for non-dietary related factors that
were associated with an increased risk of developing GDV in the
population studied.
Of relevance to this PICO, the authors’ asked owners about the
height from which they fed their dog. From this, they derived two
specific aspects to assess for risk:
1. Was the food bowl raised?
Yes / No
2. What was the height of the food bowl?
Not raised / raised ≤ 1 foot / raised > 1 foot
In analysing and presenting the data, the authors split the data
according to the size of the dog:
1. Large breed dogs
2. Giant breed dogs
Main findings:
(relevant to PICO question):
Feeding from a raised bowl significantly increased the risk of GDV
(adjusted relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.4 – 3.30, P =
0.001).
Large breeds (n = 889):
The relative risk posed by feeding from a raised feeder was
2.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.27 – 3.71; P = 0.01).
4% of the cases of GDV could be attributed to the dog being
fed from a raised feeding bowl.
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 18 (12 – 24), for dogs fed from the floor (n =
625).
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 40 (24 – 56) for dogs fed from a raised feeder
(n = 264).
Giant breeds (n = 742):
The relative risk posed by feeding from a raised feeder was
1.99 (95% confidence interval: 1.00 – 3.95; P = 0.05).
8% of the cases of GDV could be attributed to the dog being
fed from a raised feeding bowl.
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 17 (7 – 27) for dogs fed from the floor (n =
341).
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 34 (22 – 46 for dogs fed from a raised feeder
(n = 401).
However, there was an interaction between the height of the feeder
that increased the risk and the size (giant versus large breeds) of the
dog. If the dog was fed from a raised bowl, the actual height (≤ 1
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 5
total pages: 10
foot high versus > 1 foot high) of the bowl significantly affected
relative risk:
Large breeds: Dogs that were fed from a bowl ≤ 1 foot high
(n = 105) were 3.06 times (95% confidence interval: 1.60 –
5.87, P = 0002) more likely than dogs that were not fed from
a raised bowl (n = 625) to experience a GDV.
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 56 (26 – 86) for dogs fed from a bowl ≤ 1 foot
high.
Dogs that were fed from a bowl > 1 foot high (n = 144) were
no more likely to experience a GDV than dogs not fed from a
raised bowl (n = 625).
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 29 (- 11 – 47) for dogs fed from a bowl > than
1 foot high.
Giant breed dogs:
Dogs that were fed from a bowl ≤ 1 foot high (n = 60) were
no more likely to experience a GDV than dogs not fed from a
raised bowl (n = 341).
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 15 (- 6 – 36) for dogs fed from a bowl ≤ less
than 1 foot high.
Dogs that were fed from a bowl > 1 foot high (n = 324) were
2.29 times (95% confidence interval: 1.15 – 4.58, P = 0.02)
more likely than dogs that were not fed from a raised bowl
(n = 341) to experience a GDV.
The incidence (± 95% confidence interval) of GDV per 1000
dog years was 39 (25 – 53) for dogs fed from a bowl > 1 foot
high.
Limitations:
The authors collect data on feeding height at the start of the study
(within 30 days of recruiting dogs). No further attempts were made
to collect further data on this at regular intervals. Thus, the authors
cannot be certain that the dogs were being fed from a height at the
time at which it developed a GDV (up to 58 months later). This
reduces the ability of the study to detect real effects or meaningfully
explain the effects observed.
The authors do not examine interactions between:
Speed of eating and the height of the feed bowl
Morphometric measurements (particularly height of the
dog) and speed of eating
The total number of dogs lost to follow up is not reported. The
authors exclude dogs from the original study that were lost to follow
up before at least one follow up questionnaire was completed.
However, this is not the same as saying these dogs were not lost to
follow up as, for example, if the study was still in operation, why
were further questionnaires not completed by these owners? The
authors do not report how many dogs recruited to the study,
remained with the study until the study ended. Instead they report
only median duration of follow up; this is meaningless to assess the
number of dogs that remained with the study from recruitment to
study end, as the dogs were signed up to the study at different time
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 6
total pages: 10
points. If the dogs that developed GDV and the dogs that didn’t
develop a GDV differentially dropped out prematurely, this could
introduce a ‘loss to follow up bias’. We know that, by the nature of
the recruitment process for the subset of dogs included in this study,
that already 13.3% of dogs had been excluded due to lack of follow
up data (no follow up questionnaires completed). Therefore, it
seems likely that total losses to follow up before the study ended
would be higher (and possibly considerably so) but the authors fail
to give us the information needed to assess this.
There is not attempt by the authors to assess whether participant
drop out before the study ended was random or whether particular
risk factors or characteristics were associated with an increased risk
of drop out. Furthermore, there are a lot of dogs lost to death that
remain unaccounted for in the authors’ reporting.
2. Pipan (2012)
Population:
Privately owned dogs (any breed or mix, both sexes, neutered and
entire) across a wide geographic area.
The survey was potentially available to English speaking dog owners
with access to the internet in any country worldwide.
Sample size:
2551 surveys included in the analysis:
Control group (dogs without a GDV): 1437 respondents
Gastric dilation-volvulus group (GDV): 1114 respondents
Intervention details:
Online survey based study, with ad hoc convenience sampling of dog
owners.
The questionnaire was divided into three sections:
1. Demographic information (year of birth, breed, sex, neuter
status, and purpose of the dog; country and postcode of
respondent). Whether the dog had ever had a GDV that
required surgical intervention. This latter question was used
to divide dogs into the control group and the GDV group.
However, the authors then also included within the GDV
group dogs that did not have surgery, or died / were
euthanised without surgery but were considered to have a
GDV (whether confirmed or presumed).
2. GDV group: a series of 44 questions divided into 4
categories:
i. Dog specific factors
ii. Management factors
iii. Environmental factors
iv. Personality factors
3. Control group: The same questions were asked of the
control group dog owners as were asked of the GDV group,
with the exception that they were not asked any questions
about the GDV episode (as the dogs had not experienced a
GDV). They were asked one additional question (had the dog
had a prophylactic gastroplexy?). These changes reduced the
total number of questions asked to 32.
Study design:
Cross-sectional study
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 7
total pages: 10
Outcome studied:
The outcome measure was a GDV episode in the dog’s history. The
study looked for factors that were associated with an increased
incidence of GDV in the population studied.
Of relevance to this PICO, the authors’ asked owners whether the
dog was fed from a raised bowl.
Main findings:
(relevant to PICO question):
The findings in relation to raised bowl feeding are not reported
within the results section. The authors note in the discussion that
feeding from a raised bowl was not significantly associated with the
risk of developing a GDV.
Limitations:
The primary limitation is the failure to report their findings (along
with numerical data) within the results section as this precludes the
reader making an independent assessment of their conclusion.
The incidents of GDV were retrospective so owners may have
already taken measures to alter their height from which their dog
was fed post-surgery, on the basis of veterinary recommendation or
lay research. The authors do not outline whether owners were asked
to complete the form on the basis of the height the dog was fed
from at the time (or preceding) the GDV or, present time, or not
directed as to a time frame to use.
There was no attempt to match control and GDV cases across other
dimensions that may have been relevant (e.g. breed, size, and / or
age).
The population of dogs studied is not constrained to types of dogs at
high risk of GDV (large and giant breed dogs). Therefore, if any risk
factors identified co-vary with the size of the dog, this would
represent a confounding variable in interpreting the data that limits
any conclusions that may be drawn.
Appraisal, application and reflection
Only two studies were identified that addressed the PICO question and these two studies were not in
agreement. Thus, the evidence base for answering the question is relatively limited. However, it is pertinent
to observe that neither study identified feeding dogs from the floor as a risk factor for GDV. It is also
pertinent to note that most studies that investigate risk factors for a GDV have found that there are many
factors that have been found to be significantly implicated as associated with an increased risk of GDV. It is
beyond the scope of this Knowledge Summary to discuss these but it should be borne in mind by the reader
when considering the discussion below and the clinical bottom line provided.
Of the two studies, the Pipan et al. (2012) provides the more impressive sample size for GDV dogs (n = 1114),
compared with the Glickman et al. study (n = 98). However, despite this, it is difficult to conclude much about
the findings by Pipan et al. (2012). The authors provide scant information to support either how they
investigated feeder height as a risk factor or what they found. The only reference by the authors to their
findings in relation to the PICO can be found in the discussion section. They provide no numerical information
to allow the reader to evaluate this finding (e.g. was there a statistical tendency for the dogs fed from a
feeder to have an increased or decreased risk of GDV?).
The study by Glickman et al. (2000) provides more comprehensive statistical reporting of the data relevant to
the PICO question, but provides incomplete reporting of the dogs lost to follow up. Follow up losses are likely
to be high given that 13.3% of the dogs lost to follow up had already been lost during the primary study that
this study data was drawn from. This should be considered as it may severely distort the data if the losses
were not randomly distributed across the categories of dogs in relation to this PICO question. In this study,
feeding from a raised bowl was identified as a risk factor for both large and giant breed dogs. Furthermore,
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 8
total pages: 10
there was an interaction between feeder height and whether the dog was a large or giant breed dog.
Specifically, lower raised feeders (≤ 1 foot) increased the risk for large breed dogs (but not higher raised
feeders (> 1 foot), whereas the converse was true for giant breed dogs. The authors provide no explanation
for this finding. They do not appear to have examined this finding further in relation to the other data that
they collected. For example, does the height of the feeder relative to the height of the dog affect the speed
at which the dog is able to consume its ration (fast eating was also identified as a risk factor)? However,
caution should be taken in over-interpreting the data as the length of time between owner completing the
questionnaire and the dog potentially developing a GDV could be almost five years. Therefore, additional
interactions sought between the potential risk factors are problematic as owner feed management practices
(e.g. feeder used) may have altered over the period studied. Furthermore, the small numbers of dogs
affected by GDV within each sub-category (e.g. large breed dog fed from a raised feeder) could mean that
these findings are simply chance findings.
The findings from the Glickman et al. (2000) provide an additional possible explanation for the lack of
significance identified by the Pipan et al. (2012). The Glickman et al. (2000) specifically studied eleven ‘at risk’
large and giant breed dogs. Both the control dogs and the GDV dogs were therefore drawn from a similar
population of dogs. By splitting the data into large and giant breed dogs they further homogenised the dogs
in relation to factors such as height of the dog. By contrast, the Pipan et al. (2012) study used an ad hoc
convenience sample of dogs of any type/breed/etc. This lack of relative homogeneity in the study population
may have reduced the ability of the study to detect raised feeders as a risk factor for GDV, if the risk posed by
feeding from a raised feeder interacted with morphometric measurements such as height of the dog.
However, by restricting the population studied to eleven breeds, caution should be exercised in extrapolating
the Glickman et al. (2000) findings to other breeds of dogs. The authors do not extend their analysis to look at
whether the relevant risk factors identified are present across each breed studied, but this may be due to the
small sample size within in each breed of dogs affected by a GDV. There is a need for additional investigation
in these areas.
The practical implications of the combined findings are that there is limited evidence in the research area of
this PICO. The more convincing of the two studies demonstrates a risk associated with using a raised feeder
but only for specific height / size of dog (large versus giant breed) combinations. Neither of the studies found
an increased risk associated with feeding from floor height. Consequentially, for the client keen to decrease
the risk of their dog developing a GDV, the safest option would be to advise that, in the absence of further
research, the dog should be fed from a bowl placed on the floor. If comorbidities exist (e.g. reduced mobility,
arthritis) that reduce the ability of the dog to feed from the floor such that feeding from a height is
considered beneficial, the practitioner should consider the height of the dog relative to the height of the
feeder, and advise accordingly.
Methodology Section
Search Strategy
Databases searched and dates
covered:
Pubmed (1900 – 2017); Science Direct (1900 – 2017); Web of
Science (1970 –2017); CAB Abstracts (1983 – 2016)
Search terms:
(dogs OR dog OR canine) AND ("gastric dilatation" OR "gastric
dilatation volvulus" OR GDV OR "gastric torsion" OR "stomach
volvulus") AND (feed* OR diet OR diets OR dietary)
Dates searches performed:
11th January 2017
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 9
total pages: 10
Exclusion / Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion:
Pre-defined exclusion criteria: non English language, popular press
articles, any study lacking a comparator/control
Inclusion:
Any comparative (control group utilised) study in which the effect
of height of the feeder on development of a gastric dilation (+/-
volvulus) was investigated.
Search Outcome
Database
Number
of results
Excluded – did
not answer
PICO question
Excluded –
not English
language
Excluded –
conference
abstract only
Excluded –
duplicates
Total
relevant
papers
NCBI PubMed
25
23
0
0
0
2
Thomson
Reuters Web
of Science
25
22
1
0
2
0
CAB Direct
46
41
1
2
2
0
Science Direct
251
251
0
0
0
0
Total relevant papers when duplicates removed
2
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Glickman, L. et al. (2000) Non-dietary risk factors for gastric dilation-volvulus in large and giant breed
dogs. Journal of the Veterinary Medicine Association, 217 (10), pp. 1492 –
1499 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2000.217.1492
2. Pipan, M. et al. (2012) An internet-based survey of risk factors for surgical gastric dilation-volvulus in
dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, 240 (12), pp. 1456 –
1462 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.240.12.1456
Veterinary Evidence
ISSN:2396-9776
Vol 1, Issue 2
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18849/ve.v2i1.57
next review date: 20 Jan 2019
p a g e | 10
total pages: 10
Intellectual Property Rights
Knowledge Summaries are a peer-reviewed article type which aims to answer a clinical
question based on the best available current evidence. It does not override the responsibility
of the practitioner. Informed decisions should be made by considering such factors as
individual clinical expertise and judgement along with patient’s circumstances and owners’
values. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help inform and any opinions expressed
within the Knowledge Summaries are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view
of the RCVS Knowledge.
Authors of Knowledge Summaries submitted to RCVS Knowledge for publication will retain
copyright in their work, but will be required to grant to RCVS Knowledge an exclusive license
of the rights of copyright in the materials including but not limited to the right to publish, re-
publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the materials in all languages and all
media throughout the world, and to license or permit others to do so.
Authors will be required to complete a license for publication form, and will in return retain
certain rights as detailed on the form.
Veterinary Evidence and EBVM Network are RCVS Knowledge initiatives. For more information please contact us at
editor@veterinaryevidence.org
RCVS Knowledge is the independent charity associated with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). Our
ambition is to become a global intermediary for evidence based veterinary knowledge by providing access to information
that is of immediate value to practicing veterinary professionals and directly contributes to evidence based clinical
decision-making.
www.veterinaryevidence.org
RCVS Knowledge is a registered Charity No. 230886.
Registered as a Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 598443.
Registered Office:
Belgravia House
62-64 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2AF
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.