Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Canine Genetics and Epidemiology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Large-scale survey to estimate the
prevalence of disorders for 192 Kennel
Club registered breeds
B. M. Wiles
1*
, A. M. Llewellyn-Zaidi
2
, K.M. Evans
1,3
,D.G.O’Neill
4
and T. W. Lewis
1,3
Abstract
Background: Pedigree or purebred dogs are often stated to have high prevalence of disorders which are commonly
assumed to be a consequence of inbreeding and selection for exaggerated features. However, few studies empirically
report and rank the prevalence of disorders across breeds although such data are of critical importance in the prioritisation
of multiple health concerns, and to provide a baseline against which to explore changes over time. This paper reports an
owner survey that gathered disorder information on Kennel Club registered pedigree dogs, regardless of whether these
disorders received veterinary care. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of disorders among pedigree dogs
overall and, where possible, determine any variation among breeds.
Results: This study included morbidity data on 43,005 live dogs registered with the Kennel Club. Just under two thirds
of live dogs had no reported diseases/conditions. The most prevalent diseases/conditions overall were lipoma (4.3%;
95% confidence interval 4.13-4.52%), skin (cutaneous) cyst (3.1%; 2.94-3.27%) and hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder
(2.7%; 2.52-2.82%). For the most common disorders in the most represented breeds, 90 significant differences between
the within breed prevalence and the overall prevalence are reported.
Conclusion: The results from this study have added vital epidemiological data on disorders in UK dogs. It is anticipated
that these results will contribute to the forthcoming Breed Health & Conservation Plans, a Kennel Club initiative aiming
to assist in the identification and prioritisation of breeding selection objectives for health and provide advice to breeders/
owners regarding steps that may be taken to minimise the risk of the disease/disorders. Future breed-specific studies are
recommended to report more precise prevalence estimates within more breeds.
Keywords: Prevalence, Morbidity, Dogs, Survey, Breeds, Pedigree
Plain English Summary
It is often repeated that pedigree or purebred dogs have an
unacceptably high occurrence of disorders due to inbreed-
ing and selection for exaggerated features. However, there
are few single studies that report the occurrence of all dis-
orders across multiple breeds; instead most focus on spe-
cific breeds or specific conditions. Information on the
frequency of various conditions is important in prioritizing
health concerns in dogs. Therefore, a survey of dog owners
was undertaken to gather health information on Kennel
Club registered pedigree dogs, regardless of whether or not
these disorders were diagnosed at a veterinary practice.
The purpose of this study was to identify the most com-
mon conditions affecting the current Kennel Club regis-
tered pedigree dog population.
From a total of 43,005 live Kennel Club registered
dogs, just under two thirds of live dogs had no reported
disorders. The most commonly reported diseases/condi-
tions for all live dogs across all breeds were lipoma (fatty
masses) (4.3%), skin cysts (3.1%) and allergic skin dis-
order (2.7%). Differences between the within breed
prevalence and overall prevalence across breeds of some
disorders were found. The results from this study will
substantially contribute to the current understanding of
disorder occurrence in UK dogs. It is anticipated that
these results will assist the forthcoming Kennel Club
Breed Health & Conservation Plans that will identify
and prioritise the most pressing welfare concerns and
* Correspondence: Bonnie.Wiles@thekennelclub.org.uk
1
The Kennel Club, Clarges Street, London W1J 8AB, England, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8
DOI 10.1186/s40575-017-0047-3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
provide advice to breeders/owners on steps that may be
taken to minimise the risk of common conditions in par-
ticular breeds. Future breed-specific studies are recom-
mended to gather more precise health information
across more individual breeds.
Background
The domestic dog (Canis familiaris) is the most mor-
phologically diverse animal species, and consequently
there is likely to be considerable variation in morbidity
both within and between breeds [1]. Pedigree or pure-
bred dogs are often stated to have a high incidence of
disorders, many of which are popularly ascribed to in-
breeding resulting from closed studbooks and selection
for over-exaggeration [2–4]. Although many studies have
examined the inheritance of conditions which are widely
accepted as posing a particular welfare problem in some
breeds, there are relatively few studies which empirically
determine the prevalence of disorders in general within
and across breeds [2, 5–7]. However, those studies that
have been published do identify differential prevalence
of some disease/conditions across breeds, suggesting
some associations between genetic variation and mor-
bidity [2, 5]. Accurate and generalisable prevalence data
are critically important to weight and prioritise multiple
health concerns and to monitor changes over time [3].
In the last 10 years, three reports into pedigree dog
breeding have all identified a crucial lack of accurate
prevalence information for disease in UK dogs that have
constrained efforts to improve breed health [3, 4, 8].
In recent years, an increasing number of studies on the
morbidity of dog breeds have been based on data gathered
from primary-care veterinary practices [6, 9–19]. Primary-
care practice data have the advantage of providing accurate
information on the occurrence of disease in the general
dog population (at least those registered with a veterinary
practice), with a broad range of conditions being recorded
at the point of care by the veterinarian [20]. These condi-
tions will have varying welfare impact depending on their
prevalence, duration and severity [21]. Although the classic
conditions commonly associated with specific dog breeds,
such as epilepsy and syringomyelia, may often have high
welfare impact on the individual dogs that are affected be-
cause they are severe or life-threatening, the reality may be
that their impact at an overall species or even breed level
may be greatly diminished due to low prevalence or dur-
ation values [21]. Conversely, disorders that are very fre-
quent and may impair large proportions of dog’s lives such
as otitis externa, skin hypersensitivity and anal sac impac-
tion are commonly ignored during health prioritisation
and research, and yet these apparently ‘minor’disorders
may be considered to be serious issues by owners and may
have huge welfare implications for the affected individual
as well as for breeds and dogs overall [6]. Gathering
evidence on the occurrence of common disorders in the
wider population helps to identify these high prevalence
‘minor’disorders that can contribute substantially to the
welfare burden of individual animals or breeds, as well as
adding to the financial and emotional cost to owners.
While the quality of primary-care data is generally very
good, O’Neill et al. [22] note that some misclassification
and technical complexities related to the management and
analysis of large primary care practice datasets have been
reported. Geographical bias and owner socio-economic
status may also affect the results. Furthermore, 23% of UK
dogs have been reported as unregistered with a veterinary
practice and there may be some common disorders which
are not often subject to veterinary investigations [23].
Referral-based veterinary clinical studies are valuable
in gathering data on specific and usually severe disorders
that are more likely to be referred; however, the under-
lying referral population may be biased towards insured,
ill or younger dogs and therefore not be representative
of the wider population and thus poorly generalisable
for prevalence data [24]. Pet insurance data may also
have generalisability limitations, based on owner demo-
graphics, with older animals often being uninsured and
financial excesses for claims limiting the spectrum of
disorders reported [24, 25].
Useful health information on pet animals can also be
collected directly from owners to provide data without
requiring the intermediary of a veterinary surgery, refer-
ral clinic or insurance company. In 2004, the Kennel
Club/British Small Animal Veterinary Association
(BSAVA) Committee worked with the Epidemiology
Unit at the Animal Health Trust to carry out a nation-
wide survey directly of UK purebred dog owners to
identify important health conditions in UK dog breeds.
Longitudinal studies, such as Dogslife, a web-based
study of Labrador Retrievers, and The Bristol Cats Study
[26, 27], have been used to gather data over the lifetime
of a cohort of animals but are limited by relatively small
sample sizes of animals included. Owner survey data
benefit from the inclusion of data on animals which are
not necessarily insured or registered with a veterinary
surgery and do not need to have experienced any epi-
sode of a disorder. Identification and inclusion of dogs
with no reported diseases/conditions contributes to
more accurate estimates of disorder prevalence in the
wider population. Thus, owner surveys have the poten-
tial to add to the current knowledge on the common
disorders and conditions causing morbidity in UK
breeds. With very few breed-wide owner surveys re-
ported and increasing clinical research already being
conducted through practice-based surveillance [22, 28],
an owner survey methodology was selected for this
study. Nevertheless, owner surveys also suffer from
many well-recognised shortcomings including as variable
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 2 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
response rate, temporality, difficulties in validation and
misclassification whereby owners may not recognise a
condition as being a true disorder [22].
Consideration of, and comparison between, data re-
ported from multiple sources is likely to offer the most
accurate representation of the health of general dog
population whilst mitigating the various limitations of
each resource. The resultant increase in knowledge on
the causes of morbidity in dogs will aid identification of
those conditions with the greatest impact on welfare and
so assist in the development of more effective strategies
to alleviate their welfare impairment.
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of the
most common disorders and conditions, as judged by
owners, affecting the current Kennel Club registered
pedigree dog population and, where possible, identify
variations between breeds.
Methods
Owner contact and survey distribution
A cross-sectional study was carried out to collect health
information on all pedigree dogs currently registered
with the Kennel Club on 1st November 2014 and the
morbidity data reported here relate to dogs that were
alive at the time of the study. The survey was
operational online from 8th November 2014 until 31st
December 2014. Between 10th November 2014 and 2nd
December 2014, 546,836 invitations were emailed to
owners of Kennel Club registered dogs with a recorded
date of birth in the previous 15 years (from 01/01/1999
to 01/07/2014). Invitations to participate were pre-
populated with the Kennel Club registration details of
the dog. The survey was also promoted on social media
to The Kennel Club followers (on Twitter & Facebook)
(between 10th November and 31st December), on the
Kennel Club website, in the dog press (Dog World &
Our Dogs) and within breeds by personal communica-
tion from Breed Health Coordinators. Consequently,
some data were gathered on dogs born outside the 15-
year threshold. To participate, owners had to access the
study online and enter using their dog KC registration
name and number.
A prize draw offering three vouchers valued at £200,
£100, and £50 for an online retailer was used as an
additional incentive to complete the survey. Reminders
were emailed to all unopened email addresses and in the
dog press at the beginning of December 2014.
Each owner could complete only one survey but could
provide information on up to five individual living dogs.
Owners that owned more than five live dogs were ad-
vised to supply information on the oldest dog, second
oldest dog, the median aged dog, second youngest dog
and youngest dog.
The survey was applied online using a web-based survey
tool (Survey Monkey [29]). An initial draft survey was
developed by a team from the Kennel Club, University of
Nottingham and Royal Veterinary College. This draft was
piloted on 93 people including Kennel Club staff, Breed
Health Coordinators and staff at the Centre for Evidence-
based Veterinary Medicine (CEVM) study group at the
University of Nottingham to test and validate the range of
responses and functionality. The pilot helped to refine the
format, question types and answer options for the final re-
leased survey questionnaire. Sample size calculations esti-
mated that 7299 dogs would be needed to represent a
disorder with 5.0% expected prevalence to a precision of
0.5% at a 95% confidence level [30].
Questionnaire
The questionnaire included 34 individual questions
grouped into five sections (Additional file 1). Informa-
tion was collected on demographics, health, breeding
status and behaviour for each of up to five live dogs
currently owned and nominated by the respondent.
Section A pertained to general and administrative
information on each individual owner and dog (such as
Kennel Club registration number, owner email address,
date of completion).
Section B gathered information on all disorders and
conditions of 16 body systems/condition categories that
the dog had been affected by: autoimmune, digestive,
oral/dental, heart, respiratory, eyes, skin/coat, ears,
bones/joint/muscle, nervous, reproductive, liver, urinary,
blood, endocrine, cancers/growths. The order of ques-
tions followed a general pattern as shown here for the
oral/dental body system:
1) Have any of the dogs included in this survey ever
suffered from a serious or persistent oral or dental
condition(s)?
2) if ‘yes’to 1), denote the identity of the dog affected
(where the survey was being completed for multiple
dogs), and then for each dog affected,
3) provide the age at which the dog was first affected,
4) whether this was diagnosed by a vet,
5) select the specific condition from a predefined shortlist
(e.g. oral lump, oral tumour, gingivitis, elongated soft
palate, …etc. –for complete list see Additional file 2).
The shortlist terminology was developed from the
VeNom coding system [31].
Respondents could also add further conditions to
those listed in the shortlist provided by selecting the
‘Other condition’option and specifying the condition via
free text as well as the age first affected and whether
diagnosed by a vet.
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 3 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Owners could also specify diseases/conditions outside
the 16 available body system/condition categories listed
by selecting an ‘Other body system’option categorised
and specifying the condition via free text as well as the
age first affected and whether diagnosed by a vet.
Section C pertained to any of the nominated live dogs
that were breeding females and included ten questions on
health testing, the numbers of litters, puppies born and
whether there were any birth defects or congenital condi-
tions affecting the puppies, as well as awareness of Mate
Select (the Kennel Club’s online health resource) [32].
Section D pertained to any of the nominated live dogs
that were breeding males and contained four questions
on health testing and awareness of Mate Select.
Section E contained questions on desirable and un-
desirable behaviour displayed by dogs owned at the time
of the survey.
Owners were asked to be as specific as possible when
describing disorders and to use the diagnostic term used
by their veterinary surgeon whenever possible. It was
also suggested that owners consider contacting their vet-
erinary surgeon to ask for help if they had difficulty
recalling precise diagnostic terms. Veterinary surgeons
in the UK were informed of the survey via a letter to
The Veterinary Record at the start of the study [33].
Data processing
The online survey closed at 11:59 pm on 31st December
2014 and the data were exported from SurveyMonkey to
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel CSV format to be
cleaned and verified against the Kennel Club database in
Microsoft Access [34, 35]. Data on individual dogs were
anonymised prior to analysis.
Additional disease/condition terms entered as free text
were manually cleaned and categorised where possible via
cross-referencing to the lists of conditions developed by
one of the authors [BW] prior to the study, built on the
VeNom coding system [31]. Novel terms that could not
be assigned as a pre-specified condition were added as an
additional condition to the total list. Thus as data process-
ing progressed, the list of conditions was iteratively refined
and extended as necessary by one of the authors [BW].
Statistical analysis
Data analysis was carried out in R (an online open-
access language and environment for statistical comput-
ing and graphics) [36] and Matlab.
Prevalence estimates were calculated by dividing the
number of reported cases of a disease/condition in a
specified cohort by the number of unique live dogs in
the same cohort. The Wilson approximation method
was used to calculate 95% confidence interval [37]:
2np þz2zffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
z2þ4npqðÞ
p
2nþz2
ðÞ
where nis the number of responses, pis the reported
prevalence of the condition in questions, qis the preva-
lence of unaffected dogs (1-p), and zis the 1-α/2 point
of the standard Normal distribution (1.96 for 95% confi-
dence interval).
Prevalence estimates are reported for ‘common disor-
ders’with ≥50 reported incidents overall (n=101).These
estimates are reported as ‘overall prevalence’based on all
dogs included in the survey and also as ‘within breed
prevalence’for each individual ‘common breed’with re-
sponses returned for ≥200 unique dogs (n=41).
For each of the 101 common disorders, significant dif-
ferences between the within breed prevalence for each
breed (n= 41) and the overall prevalence estimates were
checked using the chi-squared test with Holm adjusted
P-values to account for multiple testing [37].
The median age at the time of the survey for each of
the 41 common breeds and approximate 95% confidence
intervals for the median age were calculated in R as:
1:58 IQR
ffiffiffi
n
p
where IQR is the inter quartile range and nis the num-
ber of responses [38, 39].
Results
General results
The survey collected responses representing 43,005
unique live dogs, across 187 breeds (from a total of 215
breeds recognised by the Kennel Club
1
). Of the dogs over-
all where information was available, 50.88% were male
(n= 21,882) and 53.53% were neutered (n= 23,021).
Neuter status was unknown in 1800 animals (4.19%, 920
male, 880 female). The median age of dogs at the time of
survey was 4.47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.28 to
7.19 years, range 68 days to 28.9 years).
The count of unique live dogs per represented
breed ranged from 1 (Canadian Eskimo Dog) to 6938
(Labrador Retriever), with nine breeds yielding data
on over 1000 unique live dogs (Labrador Retriever,
Cocker Spaniel, English Springer Spaniel, Golden
Retriever, Border Terrier, German Shepherd Dog,
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Miniature Schnauzer,
and Border Collie; Table 1).
There were 27,035 unique disease/condition incidents
reported across 752 distinct disease/condition terms
among the 43,005 dogs (see Additional file 3 for a full list).
Overall, 27,972 dogs (65.04%) had no diseases/conditions
reported and 15,033 (34.96%) dogs had at least one
disease/condition reported.
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 4 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds
#Survey dogs % Of all
survey dogs
Affenpinscher 82 0.19%
Afghan Hound 57 0.13%
Airedale Terrier 186 0.43%
Akita 75 0.17%
Alaskan Malamute 191 0.44%
American Cocker Spaniel 40 0.09%
American Water Spaniel 0 0.00%
Anatolian Shepherd Dog 0 0.00%
Australian Cattle Dog 28 0.07%
Australian Shepherd 71 0.17%
Australian Silky Terrier 0 0.00%
Australian Terrier 12 0.03%
Azawakh 0 0.00%
Basenji 17 0.04%
Basset Bleu de Gascogne 0 0.00%
Basset Fauve De Bretagne 49 0.11%
Basset Griffon Vendeen (Grand) 32 0.07%
Basset Griffon Vendeen (Petit) 48 0.11%
Basset Hound 120 0.28%
Bavarian Mountain Hound 0 0.00%
Beagle 504 1.17%
Bearded Collie 226 0.53%
Beauceron 6 0.01%
Bedlington Terrier 126 0.29%
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Groenendael) 56 0.13%
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Laekenois) 5 0.01%
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Malinois) 27 0.06%
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Tervueren) 88 0.20%
Bergamasco 0 0.00%
Bernese Mountain Dog 190 0.44%
Bichon Frise 263 0.61%
Bloodhound 24 0.06%
Bolognese 25 0.06%
Border Collie 1005 2.34%
Border Terrier 1689 3.93%
Borzoi 65 0.15%
Boston Terrier 130 0.30%
Bouvier Des Flandres 28 0.07%
Boxer 724 1.68%
Bracco Italiano 18 0.04%
Briard 54 0.13%
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds (Continued)
Brittany 57 0.13%
Bull Terrier 213 0.50%
Bull Terrier (Miniature) 62 0.14%
Bulldog 370 0.86%
Bullmastiff 105 0.24%
Cairn Terrier 299 0.70%
Canaan Dog 6 0.01%
Canadian Eskimo Dog 1 0.00%
Catalan Sheepdog 10 0.02%
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 1244 2.89%
Cesky Terrier 22 0.05%
Chesapeake Bay Retriever 54 0.13%
Chihuahua (Long Coat) 121 0.28%
Chihuahua (Smooth Coat) 128 0.30%
Chinese Crested 46 0.11%
Chow Chow 79 0.18%
Cirneco Dell’Etna 0 0.00%
Clumber Spaniel 72 0.17%
Cocker Spaniel 3723 8.66%
Collie (Rough) 212 0.49%
Collie (Smooth) 40 0.09%
Coton De Tulear 51 0.12%
Curly Coated Retriever 43 0.10%
Dachshund (Long-Haired) 39 0.09%
Dachshund (Mini Long-Haired) 168 0.39%
Dachshund (Mini Smooth-Haired) 296 0.69%
Dachshund (Mini Wire-Haired) 146 0.34%
Dachshund (Smooth-Haired) 43 0.10%
Dachshund (Wire-Haired) 94 0.22%
Dalmatian 328 0.76%
Dandie Dinmont Terrier 94 0.22%
Deerhound 87 0.20%
Dobermann 333 0.77%
Dogue de Bordeaux 139 0.32%
English Setter 183 0.43%
English Springer Spaniel 2060 4.79%
English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan) 39 0.09%
Entelbucher Mountain Dog 0 0.00%
Estrela Mountain Dog 24 0.06%
Eurasier 47 0.11%
Field Spaniel 18 0.04%
Finnish Lapphund 89 0.21%
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 5 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds (Continued)
Finnish Spitz 5 0.01%
Flat Coated Retriever 672 1.56%
Fox Terrier (Smooth) 38 0.09%
Fox Terrier (Wire) 139 0.32%
Foxhound 0 0.00%
French Bulldog 330 0.77%
German Longhaired Pointer 6 0.01%
German Pinscher 4 0.01%
German Shepherd Dog 1410 3.28%
German Shorthaired Pointer 362 0.84%
German Spitz (Klein) 23 0.05%
German Spitz (Mittel) 28 0.07%
German Wirehaired Pointer 94 0.22%
Giant Schnauzer 82 0.19%
Glen Of Imaal Terrier 33 0.08%
Golden Retriever 2059 4.79%
Gordon Setter 173 0.40%
Grand Bleu de Gascogne 0 0.00%
Great Dane 182 0.42%
Greater Swiss Mountain Dog 0 0.00%
Greenland Dog 12 0.03%
Greyhound 4 0.01%
Griffon Bruxellois 25 0.06%
Griffon Fauvre De Bretagne 0 0.00%
Hamiltonstovare 7 0.02%
Havanese 41 0.10%
Hovawart 18 0.04%
Hungarian Kuvasz 0 0.00%
Hungarian Puli 13 0.03%
Hungarian Pumi 0 0.00%
Hungarian Vizsla 441 1.03%
Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla 173 0.40%
Ibizan Hound 19 0.04%
Irish Red & White Setter 73 0.17%
Irish Setter 382 0.89%
Irish Terrier 118 0.27%
Irish Water Spaniel 49 0.11%
Irish Wolfhound 74 0.17%
Italian Greyhound 25 0.06%
Italian Spinone 172 0.40%
Japanese Akita Inu 8 0.02%
Japanese Chin 25 0.06%
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds (Continued)
Japanese Shiba 52 0.12%
Japanese Spitz 30 0.07%
Keeshond 62 0.14%
Kerry Blue Terrier 50 0.12%
King Charles Spaniel 32 0.07%
Komondor 0 0.00%
Kooikerhondje 12 0.03%
Korean Jindo 0 0.00%
Korthals Griffon 0 0.00%
Labrador Retriever 6938 16.13%
Lagotto Romagnolo 8 0.02%
Lakeland Terrier 71 0.17%
Lancashire Heeler 27 0.06%
Large Munsterlander 80 0.19%
Leonberger 153 0.36%
Lhasa Apso 470 1.09%
Lowchen (Little Lion Dog) 19 0.04%
Maltese 68 0.16%
Manchester Terrier 72 0.17%
Maremma Sheepdog 11 0.03%
Mastiff 24 0.06%
Mexican Hairless (Intermediate) 0 0.00%
Mexican Hairless (Miniture) 0 0.00%
Mexican Hairless (Standard) 0 0.00%
Miniature Pinscher 40 0.09%
Miniature Schnauzer 1019 2.37%
Neapolitan Mastiff 10 0.02%
Newfoundland 189 0.44%
Norfolk Terrier 121 0.28%
Norwegian Buhund 21 0.05%
Norwegian Elkhound 37 0.09%
Norwich Terrier 42 0.10%
Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever 130 0.30%
Old English Sheepdog 166 0.39%
Otterhound 25 0.06%
Papillon 92 0.21%
Parson Russell Terrier 209 0.49%
Pekingese 45 0.10%
Pharaoh Hound 20 0.05%
Picardy Sheepdog 0 0.00%
Pointer 241 0.56%
Polish Lowland Sheepdog 23 0.05%
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 6 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Overall, 23,652 (87.49%) disease/condition incidents
were diagnosed by a veterinary surgeon. The most com-
monly affected body system category was skin/ear/coat
(n= 9786; 36.20% of all reported disorders), and the
least common (other than ‘uncategorised’) was liver dis-
orders (n= 277; 1.02%; Table 2). There were 101 ‘com-
mon disorders’that had ≥50 reports in the overall
survey. The individual common disorders with the high-
est reported overall prevalence were lipoma (n=1859
reported incidents, overall prevalence of 4.32%), skin
(cutaneous) cyst (n= 1332, 3.10%) and hypersensitivity
(allergic) skin disorder (n= 1146, 2.66%) (Table 3).
Within breed prevalence of disorder
There were 41 ‘common breeds’with responses on ≥200
unique live dogs per breed. These common breeds
included 33,673 of the 43,005 study dogs (78.30%). The
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds (Continued)
Pomeranian 63 0.15%
Poodle (Miniature) 206 0.48%
Poodle (Standard) 253 0.59%
Poodle (Toy) 153 0.36%
Portuguese Podengo 14 0.03%
Portuguese Pointer (Imp) 0 0.00%
Portuguese Water Dog 35 0.08%
Pug 555 1.29%
Pyrenean Mastiff 0 0.00%
Pyrenean Mountain Dog 29 0.07%
Pyrenean Sheepdog 32 0.07%
Rhodesian Ridgeback 282 0.66%
Rottweiler 309 0.72%
Russian Black Terrier 16 0.04%
Saluki 49 0.11%
Samoyed 100 0.23%
Schipperke 19 0.04%
Schnauzer 89 0.21%
Scottish Terrier 195 0.45%
Sealyham Terrier 17 0.04%
Segugio Italiano 0 0.00%
Shar Pei 118 0.27%
Shetland Sheepdog 360 0.84%
Shih Tzu 351 0.82%
Siberian Husky 222 0.52%
Skye Terrier 17 0.04%
Sloughi 5 0.01%
Slovakian Rough Haired Pointer 0 0.00%
Small Munsterlander 0 0.00%
Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier 147 0.34%
Spanish Water Dog 62 0.14%
St. Bernard 65 0.15%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 797 1.85%
Sussex Spaniel 28 0.07%
Swedish Lapphund 0 0.00%
Swedish Vallhund 18 0.04%
Tibetan Mastiff 11 0.03%
Tibetan Spaniel 43 0.10%
Tibetan Terrier 402 0.93%
Turkish Kangal Dog 2 0.00%
Weimaraner 372 0.87%
Welsh Corgi (Cardigan) 45 0.10%
Table 1 Number of unique individual dogs for which responses
were received and approximated response rate (from total number
registered from 2004–13 inclusive) for all breeds (Continued)
Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) 96 0.22%
Welsh Springer Spaniel 180 0.42%
Welsh Terrier 135 0.31%
West Highland White Terrier 835 1.94%
Whippet 707 1.64%
Yorkshire Terrier 197 0.46%
TOTAL 43,005
Table 2 Number and proportion of disorders reported by body
system category
Body system n reports Percent
Skin/Ear/Coat 9786 36.20%
Muscle/Bones/Joint 4561 16.87%
Digestive 2735 10.12%
Eyes 2322 8.59%
Reproductive 1462 5.41%
Nervous 1136 4.20%
Urinary 1010 3.74%
Hearts 942 3.48%
Respiratory 744 2.75%
Lump 470 1.74%
Hormonal 463 1.71%
Autoimmune 451 1.67%
Oral 359 1.33%
Blood 285 1.05%
Liver 277 1.02%
Other 32 0.12%
Total 27,035 100.00%
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 7 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 3 List of number of reports and overall prevalence of the most commonly reported conditions/diseases (with ≥50 reports in
unique live dogs, n= 43,005)
Disorder/condition N reports Prevalence (%) 95% CI
Acute moist dermatitis 155 0.36 (0.31–0.42)
Addison’s disease (primary hypoadrenocorticism) 56 0.13 (0.10–0.17)
Alopecia/Baldness 159 0.37 (0.32–0.43)
Anal gland/sac impaction/blockage 221 0.51 (0.45–0.59)
Anal gland/sac infection 116 0.27 (0.22–0.32)
Anal lump 74 0.17 (0.14–0.22)
Arthritis 959 2.23 (2.09–2.37)
Aural (ear) haematoma 90 0.21 (0.17–0.26)
Blindness 83 0.19 (0.16–0.24)
Blocked tear ducts 155 0.36 (0.31–0.42)
Blood present in urine 103 0.24 (0.20–0.29)
Bone cancer/tumour 88 0.2 (0.17–0.25)
Brachycephalic airway obstruction syndrome (BAOS) 50 0.12 (0.09–0.15)
Cardiomyopathy (DCM) 55 0.13 (0.10–0.17)
Cataract - age related 137 0.32 (0.27–0.38)
Chronic (long-term) kidney failure 53 0.12 (0.09–0.16)
Chronic Itching 610 1.42 (1.31–1.53)
Colitis 362 0.84 (0.76–0.93)
Conjunctivitis 260 0.6 (0.54–0.68)
Corneal Ulcer 146 0.34 (0.29–0.40)
Cruciate disease 401 0.93 (0.85–1.03)
Cruciate ligament injury 100 0.23 (0.19–0.28)
Cryptorchidism 303 0.7 (0.63–0.79)
Deafness - complete 54 0.13 (0.10–0.16)
Deafness - partial 56 0.13 (0.10–0.17)
Degenerative joint disease (DJD) (Osteoarthritis) 118 0.27 (0.23–0.33)
Demodex infestation 68 0.16 (0.12–0.20)
Dermatitis 468 1.09 (0.99–1.19)
Diabetes mellitus (sugar diabetes) 64 0.15 (0.12–0.19)
Distichiasis 137 0.32 (0.27–0.38)
Ear lump 81 0.19 (0.15–0.23)
Ear mite infestation 214 0.5 (0.44–0.57)
Elbow dysplasia 439 1.02 (0.93–1.12)
Enlarged heart 66 0.15 (0.12–0.20)
Entropion 263 0.61 (0.54–0.69)
Epilepsy 436 1.01 (0.92–1.11)
Epulis 70 0.16 (0.13–0.21)
Flea allergic dermatitis 81 0.19 (0.15–0.23)
Food Allergy 370 0.86 (0.78–0.95)
Foreign body ingestion 82 0.19 (0.15–0.24)
Gastric dilation-volvulus syndrome (GDV) / Bloat 131 0.3 (0.26–0.36)
Glaucoma 52 0.12 (0.09–0.16)
Haemorrhagic gastroenteritis (HGE) (bloody diarrhoea and vomiting) 112 0.26 (0.22–0.31)
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 8 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 3 List of number of reports and overall prevalence of the most commonly reported conditions/diseases (with ≥50 reports in
unique live dogs, n= 43,005) (Continued)
Harvest mite (chigger) dermatitis 69 0.16 (0.13–0.20)
Heart (cardiac) failure 68 0.16 (0.12–0.20)
Heart (cardiac) murmur 384 0.89 (0.81–0.99)
Hip dysplasia 561 1.3 (1.20–1.42)
Hyperadrenocorticism (Cushing’s disease) 65 0.15 (0.12–0.19)
Hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder 1146 2.66 (2.52–2.82)
Hypothyroidism/Under-active thyroid 227 0.53 (0.46–0.60)
Immune Mediated Heamolytic Anaemia (IMHA) 50 0.12 (0.09–0.15)
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) 149 0.35 (0.30–0.41)
Intervertebral disc disorder 203 0.47 (0.41–0.54)
Irregular Heart beat 109 0.25 (0.21–0.31)
Juvenile cataract 71 0.17 (0.13–0.21)
Kennel Cough 113 0.26 (0.22–0.32)
Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS Dry Eye) 236 0.55 (0.48–0.62)
Lipoma 1859 4.32 (4.13–4.52)
Lymphoma 101 0.23 (0.19–0.29)
Mammary cancer/tumour 126 0.29 (0.25–0.35)
Mammary lump 237 0.55 (0.49–0.63)
Mitral valve disease (MVD) 118 0.27 (0.23–0.33)
Nail/Claw injury 59 0.14 (0.11–0.18)
Ocular (eye) discharge 134 0.31 (0.26–0.37)
Oral (mouth) cancer/tumour 64 0.15 (0.12–0.19)
Oral (mouth) lump 72 0.17 (0.13–0.21)
Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) 95 0.22 (0.18–0.27)
Otitis externa 629 1.46 (1.35–1.58)
Otitis media 515 1.2 (1.10–1.30)
Pancreatitis 290 0.67 (0.60–0.76)
Patellar luxation/Slipping kneecap 312 0.73 (0.65–0.81)
Persistent diarrhoea 210 0.49 (0.43–0.56)
Persistent vomiting 69 0.16 (0.13–0.20)
Persistent vomiting & diahorrea 103 0.24 (0.20–0.29)
Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) 53 0.12 (0.09–0.16)
Prolapsed third eyelid gland (Cherry eye) 149 0.35 (0.30–0.41)
Pseudopregnancy (phantom pregnancy) 135 0.31 (0.27–0.37)
Pyoderma 287 0.67 (0.59–0.75)
Pyometra 244 0.57 (0.50–0.64)
Rash between folds of skin 59 0.14 (0.11–0.18)
Regular Reverse Sneezing 65 0.15 (0.12–0.19)
Seizure/Fitting 301 0.7 (0.63–0.78)
Skin (cutaneous) cyst 1332 3.1 (2.94–3.27)
Skin cancer/tumour 501 1.16 (1.07–1.27)
Skin lump 552 1.28 (1.18–1.39)
Splenic cancer/tumour 55 0.13 (0.10–0.17)
Spondylosis 112 0.26 (0.22–0.31)
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 9 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
median age at the time of survey in these 41 common
breeds ranged from 1.81 years for the French Bulldog to
5.54 years for the Bearded Collie (Fig. 1).
The count and proportion of dogs reported as
affected by one or more diseases/conditions for each
common breed are shown in Table 4. The proportion
of dogs reported as unaffected by any diseases/
conditions across the 41 common breeds ranged from
45.99% (Boxer) to 79.21% (Whippet). By comparison,
the proportion reported as unaffected by any dis-
eases/conditions across the entire survey [n= 43,005]
was 65.04%.
The within breed prevalence of the 101 common
disorders among the 41 common breeds in the survey
Table 3 List of number of reports and overall prevalence of the most commonly reported conditions/diseases (with ≥50 reports in
unique live dogs, n= 43,005) (Continued)
Steroid Responsive Meningitis/Arteritis 63 0.15 (0.11–0.19)
Syringomyelia 74 0.17 (0.14–0.22)
Trachea/Windpipe disorder 54 0.13 (0.10–0.16)
Umbilical hernia 495 1.15 (1.05–1.26)
Unknown 127 0.3 (0.25–0.35)
Unspecified Autoimmune 144 0.33 (0.28–0.39)
Unspecified Eye 124 0.29 (0.24–0.34)
Unspecified Muscle Bone or Joint 194 0.45 (0.39–0.52)
Unspecified Respiratory 62 0.14 (0.11–0.18)
Unspecified Skin Ear or Coat 388 0.9 (0.82–1.00)
Unspecified tumour/cancer 440 1.02 (0.93–1.12)
Urinary incontinence 295 0.69 (0.61–0.77)
Urinary tract infection (UTI) 288 0.67 (0.60–0.75)
Urolithiasis (Urate crystals) 107 0.25 (0.21–0.30)
Fig. 1 Median age (and 95% confidence intervals) of the n= 41 breeds with responses on ≥200 unique dogs
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 10 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 4 The number of unique live dogs surveyed, number of dogs with one or more reported incident of disease/condition, and
clear (no reported disease/condition), affected (≥1 reported disease/condition) proportion and median age (years), for breeds with
reports on ≥200 unique live dogs (n= 41 breeds)
Breed n dogs n dogs with ≥1 condition Clear prop Affected prop Median age (years)
Labrador Retriever 6938 2388 65.58% 34.42% 4.73
Cocker Spaniel 3723 977 73.76% 26.24% 3.99
English Springer Spaniel 2060 670 67.48% 32.52% 4.52
Golden Retriever 2059 736 64.25% 35.75% 4.71
Border Terrier 1689 491 70.93% 29.07% 4.53
German Shepherd Dog 1410 540 61.70% 38.30% 4.47
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 1244 607 51.21% 48.79% 5.25
Miniature Schnauzer 1019 318 68.79% 31.21% 3.71
Border Collie 1005 256 74.53% 25.47% 5.21
West Highland White Terrier 835 326 60.96% 39.04% 5.29
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 797 295 62.99% 37.01% 4.76
Boxer 724 391 45.99% 54.01% 4.85
Whippet 707 147 79.21% 20.79% 4.29
Flat Coated Retriever 672 300 55.36% 44.64% 4.71
Pug 555 216 61.08% 38.92% 2.67
Beagle 504 183 63.69% 36.31% 4.27
Lhasa Apso 470 121 74.26% 25.74% 3.57
Hungarian Vizsla 441 142 67.80% 32.20% 3.71
Tibetan Terrier 402 146 63.68% 36.32% 4.28
Irish Setter 382 160 58.12% 41.88% 4.71
Weimaraner 372 163 56.18% 43.82% 5.15
Bulldog 370 178 51.89% 48.11% 2.73
German Shorthaired Pointer 362 122 66.30% 33.70% 4.48
Shetland Sheepdog 360 126 65.00% 35.00% 5.17
Shih Tzu 351 139 60.40% 39.60% 3.92
Dobermann 333 145 56.46% 43.54% 4.60
French Bulldog 330 122 63.03% 36.97% 1.81
Dalmatian 328 137 58.23% 41.77% 4.82
Rottweiler 309 119 61.49% 38.51% 4.30
Cairn Terrier 299 102 65.89% 34.11% 4.60
Dachshund (Miniature Smooth-Haired) 296 98 66.89% 33.11% 3.42
Rhodesian Ridgeback 282 133 52.84% 47.16% 4.19
Bichon Frise 263 94 64.26% 35.74% 4.44
Poodle (Standard) 253 90 64.43% 35.57% 4.64
Pointer 241 84 65.15% 34.85% 4.66
Bearded Collie 226 80 64.60% 35.40% 5.54
Siberian Husky 222 66 70.27% 29.73% 4.95
Bull Terrier 213 110 48.36% 51.64% 4.33
Collie (Rough) 212 63 70.28% 29.72% 4.78
Parson Russell Terrier 209 61 70.81% 29.19% 5.05
Poodle (Miniature) 206 75 63.59% 36.41% 4.62
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 11 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
can be compared (Additional file 4). For the most com-
monly reported condition, lipoma, the within breed preva-
lence ranged from zero (French Bulldog) to 17.47%
(Weimaraner), compared to the overall prevalence of 4.32%
from all responses (n= 43,005) across all breeds (n=187).
Figure 2 illustrates which of the 41 common breeds
has a significantly (P< 0.05) higher (red) and lower
(green) within breed prevalence per disease/condition
than the overall prevalence determined from all re-
sponses (n= 43,005). Ninety of the 101 (89.1%) common
disorders showed a significant difference between the
within breed and the overall prevalence for at least one
of the 41 breeds. There was no significant difference
shown in 11 diseases/conditions (anal lump, conjunctivi-
tis, ear mite infestation, foreign body ingestion, inflamma-
tory bowel disease, mammary cancer/tumour, mammary
lump, progressive retinal atrophy, pseudopregnancy
[phantom pregnancy], unknown, unspecified Muscle Bone
or Joint). The disease/condition showing the greatest
number of significant differences between within breed
prevalence and the overall prevalence estimate was lipoma
(seven breeds with a significantly higher prevalence, and
nine breeds with a significantly lower prevalence).
Figure 2 also identifies within breeds which diseases/
conditions have a significantly higher and lower preva-
lence than the overall prevalence. Using the Labrador
Retriever as an example, it can be seen that of the 101
listed disorders, there are eighteen for which the Labra-
dor Retriever has a significantly lower prevalence within
breed than overall and seven diseases/conditions esti-
mated at a significantly higher prevalence within breed
than overall.
The breed with the greatest number of diseases/condi-
tions at a significantly higher prevalence within breed than
overall was the Boxer (25 disorders), while the Labrador
exhibited the largest number of diseases/conditions at a
significantly lower within breed prevalence than overall
(18 disorders).
Discussion
The data gathered in this survey enabled prevalence esti-
mation and comparison for diseases/conditions both
overall and by breed among a large cohort of pedigree
dogs registered with the Kennel Club. The large size of
the study allowed precise prevalence estimation even for
relatively uncommon disorders and facilitated identifica-
tion of diseases/conditions occurring at significantly
higher or lower prevalence within specific breeds than
determined over the whole survey (where sufficient data
is available). The availability of such large volumes of
data collected in a systematic format across many
different breeds and disorders contributes substantially
to the evidence base on health in pedigree dogs in the
UK and will assist with prioritisation of the most press-
ing welfare concerns in many pedigree dog breeds.
The survey collected morbidity data as reported by
owners on a total of 43,005 live dogs registered with the
Kennel Club, making this one of the largest surveys ever
of its kind. Just under two thirds of live dogs had no re-
ported disorders. The most prevalent diseases/conditions
reported across all live dogs were lipoma (4.3%), skin
(cutaneous) cyst (3.1%) and hypersensitivity (allergic)
skin disorder (2.7%). The most commonly affected body
systems were skin/ear/coat (9786 reports), muscles/
bones/joints (4561 reports) and digestive (2735 reports).
This study gathered data via an owner survey and
attempted to improve the generalisability of the results
by allowing inclusion of disorders that were deemed by
by owners as being serious and/or persistent on up to
five of their living dogs registered with the Kennel Club.
The study specifically aimed also to collect data on dogs
with no reported diseases/conditions in order to esti-
mate accurately the prevalence of particular diseases/
conditions in the wider population of both healthy and
ill dogs. Study designs based on veterinary clinical data,
although useful, may have biases towards animals with
diseases/conditions making them less representative of the
wider population, whilst studies using pet insurance data
may additionally contain biases based on owner demo-
graphics; for example, older animals often being uninsured
and financial excesses to overcome [24, 25]. However, the
data collected in the current study will also have some
intrinsic biases. We determined the prevalence from data
as reported by participating owners and are therefore reli-
ant on the recall, judgement on what constitutes a dis-
order, conscientiousness and ethics of participants, as well
as they study’s ability to elicit participation. Respondents
providing information on previous experiences may be
affected by recall bias, where more distant events are
increasingly less likely to be recalled [40, 41] which may
bias against diseases/conditions that affect younger dogs,
such as panosteitis. Furthermore, not all participating
owners may have owned their dog from puppyhood,
further exacerbating the bias against ‘early age’reporting.
However, since this is a cross-sectional study rather than a
lifelong or longevity study and given the median age of
4.5 years (IQR 2.3 –7.2 years) of dogs herein, there will
also likely be a bias towards reporting of diseases/condi-
tions tending to affect younger dogs, since there is an im-
balance of data in favour early vs mature life (75% of dogs
in the survey had lived longer than 2.3 years, but only 25%
had lived longer than 7.2 years). This may mean diseases/
conditions associated with ‘old age’, such as arthritis and
laryngeal paralysis, were less likely to have been observed
so far in the dogs’lives. Age-related biases are further
complicated by breed variation in longevity associated
with body size and other factors [9]. Additionally, the
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 12 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fig. 2 Matrix showing significantly higher (red) or lower (green) within breed prevalence than the across breeds mean prevalence of the n= 101
most commonly reported conditions (≥50 reports, rows) across the n= 41 breeds with the most responses on unique live dogs (≥200 dogs, columns).
A full size version of this figure, as well as a black and white version is available in Additional files 5 and 6
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 13 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
specific wording in the survey (“…ever suffered from a ser-
ious or persistent…condition?”) means owners effectively
determined the threshold for reporting a disease/condi-
tion. While this likely results in a lack of consistency in
reporting mild or benign disorders, it does have an advan-
tage of reflecting the collection of diseases/conditions that
owners view as having a high welfare impact on their dogs.
Therefore, despite and because of the shortcomings of the
various methods of epidemiological data collection across
study designs, data gathered from multiple different
sources can contribute towards building more accurate
pictures of the prevalence and prioritisation of diseases/
conditions affecting the wider dog population.
The proportion of dogs overall reported as having
experienced at least one disease/condition in this study
was 35% (at a median age of 4.5 years). This leads to the
question whether this indicates that the UK purebred
dog population is subject to a high burden of disease?
Other published data for general prevalence of
affectation by disorders in dogs is limited. O’Neill et al.
[6] reported that 75.8% of dogs randomly sampled from
veterinary practice data were reported to be affected by
at least one condition (median age = 4.8 years). Differing
study methods between the current study and those of
O’Neill et al. [6, 42] may account for some of this
variation. Animals under veterinary care may be biased
towards animals with illness but may also benefit from
improved data validity by avoiding recall and misclassifica-
tion bias because data were recorded contemporaneously
at the time of each event and by a veterinary surgeon [22].
Furthermore, data from veterinary practices records all
disorders detected, regardless of the threshold of ‘severity
or persistence’as stipulated in this survey, also possibly
contributing to the higher prevalence of diseases/condi-
tions than reported in this study.
In comparison to other species, a study on cats by
O’Neill et al. [42] found 68.3% of cats had at least one
disorder recorded. An Australian study estimating the
prevalence of chronic diseases in human patients attend-
ing medical general practice found that 39.6% of respon-
dents had no listed conditions diagnosed [43]. When
these figures were adjusted to take into account people
who did not visit a general practice doctor (so who, it
may be assumed, are on the whole generally healthy and
unaffected by any disorders) the estimated prevalence of
being unaffected by any disease/condition was 53.2%.
Purebred dog populations are subject to similar popula-
tion structures and selection intensities as other domes-
ticated species, which are very different to those in
human populations, and are posited to increase the risk
of disorders arising due to a high rate of inbreeding [5].
However, as companion animals, dogs are also recog-
nised as sharing many environmental risk features with
human populations which may lead to similarities in
disease profiles (for example levels of diabetes mellitus
and obesity are increasing in both human and dog popu-
lations in developed countries [44–46]), and dogs in the
UK are often availed a more similar standard of veterinary/
medical care to humans than domesticated livestock species.
Although the figures of 35% and 76% of dogs affected by
at least one disease/condition reported here and by
O’Neill et al. [6] may on first inspection appear rather
high, they encompass a wide range of diseases/conditions
affecting dogs with large variation in the severity of wel-
fare impact on the individual. For example, this survey re-
corded reports that ranged from relatively minor and
treatable conditions, such as skin cysts and flea allergic
dermatitis, to the severe and life threatening, such as can-
cer and gastric dilatation volvulus/bloat. Examination of
the prevalence of specific diseases/conditions is necessary
to contribute towards determining the extent of the wel-
fare burden of each across and within breeds [21].
The current study identified lipoma (4.3%), skin cyst
(3.1%) and hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder (2.7%)
as the most common disorders. A VetCompass study
across the general population of dogs under primary
veterinary care in the UK determined otitis externa
(10.2%), periodontal disease (9.3%), anal sac impaction
(7.1%) and overgrown nails (7.1%) to be the most preva-
lent conditions, with lipoma (3.5%) at marginally lower
prevalence than, and skin masses (2.8%) and skin hyper-
sensitivity (2.9%) at a similar prevalence to, those deter-
mined in the current study [6]. This indicates that there
may indeed have been a general under-reporting of
diseases/conditions considered ‘minor’(and so below the
threshold stipulated in the survey), such as some dental,
anal sac and ear problems. However, prevalence estimates
from this study of more serious disorders, for example
those requiring minor surgery, shows concordance with
estimates form other studies. A study on Danish dogs
reported conditions by body system, identifying disorders
of the skin as the most frequent (13.6%), which is compar-
able to an estimate derived from the proportion of disor-
ders being of the skin/ear/coat and prevalence of generally
affected dogs reported here (0.362 × 0.35 = 0.127). How-
ever, the second and third most frequently reported body
system diseases/conditions reported in Danish dogs
differed from those observed in this study (eye diseases,
13.2%; accidents, 12.6%; and diseases of the ear, 12.6%;
[47]). The VetCompass study classifying conditions by
organ system showed greater comparability to figures
reported here, with integument (36.3%), digestive (29.5%)
and musculoskeletal (14.8%) being the most frequently
reported [6].
Both the current study and the VetCompass results
[6] demonstrate variation in the prevalence for particu-
lar conditions across some breeds. Overall, in the
current study Boxers had the greatest number (n= 25)
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 14 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
of diseases/conditions with significantly higher within
breed prevalence compared with overall prevalence.
Four breeds had the lowest number (one) of diseases/
conditions at a higher prevalence within breed than
overall (Border Terrier, Hungarian Vizsla, Parson Russell
Terrier and Pointer). Labradors had the greatest number
of diseases/conditions at a significantly lower prevalence
than overall (n= 18, see Fig. 2).
The particular diseases/conditions which occur at a
higher prevalence in specific breeds may suggest clues
underlying pathophysiological aetiology. For example,
this study identifies that West Highland White Terriers
appear predisposed to acute moist dermatitis, chronic
itching, dermatitis, diabetes mellitus, harvest mite
dermatitis, hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder, ker-
atoconjunctivitis sicca, otitis externa and pyoderma,
suggesting possible underlying breed weakness in the
immune system [48]. Labrador Retrievers have a higher
prevalence of arthritis, degenerative joint disease,
elbow dysplasia, hip dysplasia, and osteochondritis disse-
cans suggesting that joint conditions remain a priority
concern in this breed, despite decades of high participa-
tion rates in the British Veterinary Association (BVA)/
Kennel Club (KC) hip dysplasia screening scheme [49]
and evidence of an improving genetic trend in hip score
[50]. Flat Coated Retrievers had a higher within breed
prevalence of bone tumours (1.34%), lymphoma (0.89%),
skin cancer (4.76%) and skin lumps (3.57%), suggesting
that neoplasia may be a particular concern for this breed.
This finding concurs with results from a Swedish insur-
ance study [51]. A higher within breed than overall preva-
lence of a number of heart diseases/conditions in the
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel were reported: enlarged
heart, heart failure, heart murmur, irregular heart beat and
mitral valve disease. Heart murmurs were particularly
prevalent, with a within breed prevalence of 9.65% (com-
pared to the overall prevalence of 0.89%). This finding
concurs with previous reports showing that Cavalier King
Charles Spaniels have a higher prevalence of cardiac con-
ditions [16, 18, 52, 53].
Large population-based studies such as the current sur-
vey also offer opportunities to identify novel breed predis-
positions for diseases/conditions that have not been
previously reported. For example, the current study re-
ports a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus
in West Highland White Terriers (0.96% vs. an overall
prevalence of 0.16%), of entropion in Irish Setters (3.40%
vs 0.61%), and spondylosis in German Shorthaired
Pointers (1.38% vs 0.26%). While these figures may not
appear very large (and must be interpreted with caution
given potentially small numbers and non-random sam-
pling), their availability may be valuable in raising
awareness in susceptible breeds, perhaps leading to in-
creased vigilance among owners, breeders and
veterinarians. In the modern world of large datasets
and so called ‘Big Data’, application of data-mining ap-
proaches offer real opportunities for hypothesis gener-
ation that can unearth novel and important findings
that current hypothesis-driven methodologies are un-
able to address [54, 55].
The issue of under-powering because of insufficient data
to support statistically significant inferences on breed pre-
dispositions is demonstrated in the results obtained in the
current study for Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syn-
drome (BOAS). As expected Bulldogs, French Bulldogs
and Pugs had a higher prevalence of BOAS, as has pre-
viously been reported [56]. However, Fasenella et al.
[56] found BOAS to be more prevalent in the Bulldog
and Pug, but also the Boston Terrier. In this study, re-
sponses were received for only 130 unique Boston Ter-
riers and consequently they were not included in the 41
common breeds across which the differential preva-
lence was statistically reported. However, an inability to
report robust statistical values due to paucity of data should
not be interpreted as evidence that these unexplored breeds
arenotabreedpronetospecificdisorders[57].
Questions on breed health should not be limited to just
identifying over-represented breeds but should also aim to
identify breeds with significantly lower prevalence for cer-
tain disorders. For example, the Border Collie had a lower
within breed prevalence for hypersensitivity (allergic) skin
disorder, otitis externa, otitis media and skin (cutaneous)
cyst, findings consistent with a Danish morbidity study
[47]. Figure 2, showing significantly higher and lower
within breed prevalence of diseases/conditions than the
overall prevalence, allows identification of breeds which
are generally less prone to disorders. For example, the
Cocker Spaniel, currently the second most popular breed
as judged by Kennel Club registrations, while having four
diseases/conditions occurring at a higher prevalence
(anal gland impaction, blocked tear ducts, keratocon-
junctivitis sicca and pancreatitis), has a within breed
prevalence lower than the overall prevalence for 13 dis-
orders: alopecia/baldness, arthritis, chronic itching,
cruciate disease, dermatitis, elbow dysplasia, epilepsy,
hip dysplasia, hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder,
seizure, skin tumours, umbilical hernia and urinary in-
continence. The Border Terrier is more prone to just
one disorder (seizures), while being less prone to five
conditions: arthritis, elbow dysplasia, lipoma, skin tu-
mours and umbilical hernia. This highlights the com-
plexity that exists for each breed as it faces its own
particular concerns and while some breeds are prone to
certain conditions, they may be less so to others. The
results of this study will contribute to the limited infor-
mation currently available and it is anticipated that it will
be used in the forthcoming Breed Health and Conservation
Plans to assist in the identification and prioritisation of
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 15 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
selection objectives and in providing advice to breeders/
owners on common conditions in particular breeds that
may assist in minimising risk. However, future breed-
specific studies are recommended to report more precise
prevalence estimates across more breeds than the current
study could include.
It should be noted, however, that the variation in
median and IQR of age at the time of the survey in these
41 common breeds (shown in Fig. 1), implies that these
disorder results may be subject to age-related biases as
discussed earlier. In particular, the young median age of
French Bulldogs, Pugs and Bulldogs in this study (Fig. 1)
may have hampered the ability to accurately determine
the prevalence of diseases/conditions tending to affect
dogs later in life (for example, arthritis and age-related
cataracts). Conversely, the higher median age of Cavalier
King Charles Spaniels in this study may account in part
for the relatively high prevalence of diseases/conditions
as the dogs in the study would have each contributed
greater time to the study during which to have disorder
events. In general, across all breeds, the imbalance of
‘early’vs ‘later life’data would be expected to bias
against the detection of diseases/conditions primarily
affecting older dogs. However, this survey does provide
useful data on the disorders and conditions currently
affecting pedigree breeds in what may be regarded as
their ‘prime of life’.
There is likely to be considerable variation in the wel-
fare impact across the range of diseases/conditions in-
cluded in this study, which vary from acute to chronic,
treatable to incurable, and life-threatening to merely irri-
tating. However, every disease/condition reported will
have resulted in some impact on the dog’s welfare and a
financial and/or emotional cost to the owner, and is
therefore important. It is hoped that the results pre-
sented here will assist a wide range of stakeholders in-
volved in the prevention, treatment and management of
disorders in dogs. For example, the within breed preva-
lence of conditions such as food allergies and urinary in-
continence may be primarily of interest to owners, more
acute and severe conditions like gastric dilatation volvulus
(bloat) and epilepsy may be of more interest to veterinary
professionals who treat dogs and advise owners, whilst
some conditions which have an equivalent in human medi-
cine or where breed-specific conditions are little known
may be of more interest to translational researchers [58].
Data such as those presented in the current study are
critical to optimise the allocation of resources for the
greatest impact in alleviating suffering and improving wel-
fare, thereby contributing to improving disease control
through prioritisation, decision making and animal hus-
bandry [6, 59, 60]. Some diseases/conditions which may be
considered as clinically benign may actually have a large
overall welfare impact due to high prevalence or duration
within or across breeds. Thus techniques such as the gen-
eric illness severity index for dogs (GISID), a scale pro-
posed by Asher et al. [2], which aims to categorise and
prioritise the overall welfare impact of disorders based on
severity and prevalence, may assist in determining the total
welfare impact of specific conditions.
There is substantial evidence of welfare improvements
from official health schemes, amending breed standards,
and developing estimated breeding values for complex
inherited conditions that the current study aimed to opti-
mise [61–66]. However, the current results also clearly in-
dicate the need for ongoing participation in existing
screening schemes, and the benefits from development of
new methods to gather widespread data on prevalence,
duration and severity of diseases/conditions in order to pri-
oritise the focused delivery of health schemes overall and
within specific breeds towards those areas with the highest
prospects of real welfare improvement at population levels.
Conclusion
This report describes the most prevalent diseases/condi-
tions among Kennel Club registered dogs overall and
within common breeds. Just under two-thirds of live
dogs had no reported conditions, whilst the most preva-
lent specific conditions reported were lipoma, skin (cuta-
neous) cyst and hypersensitivity (allergic) skin disorder.
When conditions were classified by body system, the
most prevalent body systems affected were skin/ear/coat,
muscles/bones/joints and digestive. The information col-
lected through this study has added to valuable epi-
demiological data and it is anticipated that it will be
used to assist in the identification and prioritisation of
selection objectives and in providing advice to breeders/
owners on common conditions in particular breeds that
may be taken to minimise risk.
Endnotes
1
Refers to the breeds recognised at the time of the sur-
vey. Two breeds have been recognised by The Kennel
Club since the survey closed; the Braque D’Auvergne
and Jack Russell.
Additional files
Additional file 1: The questionnaire questions. (PDF 1124 kb)
Additional file 2: Complete list of conditions supplied for each body/
system category in the survey. (XLSX 13 kb)
Additional file 3: List of all 752 diseases/conditions reported across the
43,005 unique live dogs surveyed, number of incidents reported and
overall prevalence. (XLSX 41 kb)
Additional file 4: The within breed prevalence (and 95% confidence
intervals) of the most commonly reported 101 conditions (with ≥50
reports in all unique live dogs) across the 41 breeds with most responses
for unique live dogs (≥200 unique live dogs). (XLSX 36 kb)
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 16 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Additional file 5: Full size version of Figure 2. (PNG 143 kb)
Additional file 6: Black and white version of Figure 2. (PNG 146 kb)
Abbreviations
BOAS: Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome; BVA: British Veterinary
Association; CEVM: Centre for Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine;
CI: Confidence interval; GISID: Generic Illness Severity Index for Dogs;
IQR: Inter-quartile range; KC: Kennel Club
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the many staff employed at the Kennel Club who
contributed towards the conception of the study, and the compilation and
distribution of the survey, including Nick Sutton, Charlotte McNamara,
Bonnie-Marie Abhayaratne and Dina Ahmad. We are also grateful to Dr. Lucy
Asher and Dr. Naomi Harvey from the University of Nottingham School of
Veterinary Medicine and Science for contributing towards the questions in
their respective fields. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the time
taken by all participants in the survey.
Funding
This study was funded internally by the Kennel Club.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets during and/or analysed during the current study available from
the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors’contributions
AL-Z and BW first conceived the idea for the study. BW compiled the survey
with help from TL, DON and KE and conducted preliminary data processing.
TL and BW performed the statistical analysis. The paper was written primarily
by BW TL and KE with additional contributions from AL-Z and DON. All authors
have approved the final article.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Participants consented to the data provided on dogs being used for the
purposes of research according to the Kennel Club’s Privacy policy: http://
www.thekennelclub.org.uk/privacy-policy/?utm_campaign=PBHS+EMAIL
+-+Single+dog+owners&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_medium=
email&utm_content=
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
BW, KE and TL are employed by the Kennel Club. AL-Z was employed by the
Kennel Club and KE was employed by the University of Nottingham School
of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the time the study was undertaken.
DON was funded at the RVC by an award from the KCCT.
Publisher’sNote
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author details
1
The Kennel Club, Clarges Street, London W1J 8AB, England, UK.
2
International Partnership for Dogs, 504547 Grey Rd 1, Georgia Bluffs, ON,
England, UK.
3
School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of
Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire
LE12 5RD, England, UK.
4
Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public
Health, Royal Veterinary College, London NW1 0TU, UK.
Received: 10 October 2016 Accepted: 29 June 2017
References
1. Wayne RK, Leonard JA, Vila C. Genetic analysis of dog domestication. In: Zeder
MA, editor. Documenting domestication: new genetic and archaeological
paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2006. p. 279–93.
2. Asher L, Diesel G, Summers JF, McGreevy PD, Collins LM. Inherited defects
in pedigree dogs. Part 1: disorders related to breed standards. Vet J. 2009;
182(3):402–11.
3. Bateson P. Independent inquiry into dog breeding. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge; 2010.
4. Rooney N, Sargan D. Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern.
Hosham UK: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; 2009.
5. Summers JF, Diesel G, Asher L, McGreevy PD, Collins LM. Inherited defects
in pedigree dogs. Part 2: disorders that are not related to breed standards.
Vet J. 2010;183(1):39–45.
6. O’Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. Prevalence
of disorders recorded in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in
England. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90501.
7. Farrell LL, Schoenebeck JJ, Wiener P, Clements DN, Summers KM. The
challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited
disease. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2015;2(1):1.
8. APGAW. A healthier future for pedigree dogs. London: The Associate
Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare; 2009.
9. O’Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC.
Longevity and mortality of owned dogs in England. Vet J. 2013;
198(3):638–43.
10. Bonnett BN, Egenvall A, Hedhammar Å, Olson P. Mortality in over 350,000
insured Swedish dogs from 1995–2000: I. Breed-, gender-, age-and cause-
specific rates. Acta Vet Scand. 2005;46(3):1.
11. Sanchis-Mora S, Pelligand L, thomas CL, Volk HA, Abeyesinghe SM, Brodbelt
DC, Church DB, Thomson PC, McGreevy PD, O’neill DG. Dogs attending
primary-care practice in England with clinical signs suggestive of Chiari-like
malformation/syringomyelia. Vet Rec. 2016;179(17):436.
12. O’neill DG, Scudder C, Faire JM, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC,
Brodbelt DC. Epidemiology of hyperadrenocorticism among 210,824 dogs
attending primary-care veterinary practices in the UK from 2009 to 2014. J
Small Anim Pract. 2016;57:365–73.
13. O’Neill DG, Meeson RL, Sheridan A, Church DB, Brodbelt DC. The epidemiology
of patellar luxation in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in
England. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2016;3:1–12.
14. O’Neill DG, Darwent EC, Church DB, Brodbelt DC. Demography and health of Pugs
under primary veterinary care in England. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2016;3:1–12.
15. Taylor-Brown FE, Meeson RL, Brodbelt DC, Church DB, McGreevy PD,
Thomson PC, O’Neill DG. Epidemiology of cranial cruciate ligament disease
diagnosis in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in England.
Vet Surg. 2015;44:777–83.
16. Summers J, O’Neill D, Church D, Thomson P, McGreevy P, Brodbelt D.
Prevalence of disorders recorded in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels attending
primary-care veterinary practices in England. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2015;2:4.
17. Shoop S, Marlow S, Church D, English K, McGreevy P, Stell A, Thomson P,
O’Neill D, Brodbelt D. Prevalence and risk factors for mast cell tumours in
dogs in England. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2015;2:1.
18. Mattin MJ, Boswood A, Church DB, López-Alvarez J, McGreevy PD, O’Neill
DG, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. Prevalence of and risk factors for
degenerative mitral valve disease in dogs attending primary-care veterinary
practices in England. J Vet Intern Med. 2015;29:847–54.
19. O’Neill DG, Elliott J, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC.
Chronic kidney disease in dogs in UK veterinary practices: prevalence, risk
factors, and survival. J Vet Intern Med. 2013;27:814–21.
20. O’Neill D, Church D, McGreevy P, Thomson P, Brodbelt D. Approaches to
canine health surveillance. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2014;1:2.
21. CollinsLM,AsherL,SummersJF,DieselG,McGreevyPD.Welfare
epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited
defects on the pedigree dog population. Anim Welf. 2010;19:67–75.
22. O’Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC.
Approaches to canine health surveillance. Canine genetics and
epidemiology. 2014;1(1):1.
23. Asher L, Buckland EL, Phylactopoulos CI, Whiting MC, Abeyesinghe SM,
Wathes CM. Estimation of the number and demographics of companion
dogs in the UK. BMC Vet Res. 2011;7(1):1.
24. Fleming JM, Creevy KE, Promislow DE. Mortality in north American dogs
from 1984 to 2004: an investigation into age-, size-, and breed-related
causes of death. J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25(2):187–98.
25. Egenvall A, Nødtvedt A, Penell J, Gunnarsson L, Bonnett BN. Insurance
data for research in companion animals: benefits and limitations. Acta
Vet Scand. 2009;51(1):1.
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 17 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
26. Clements DN, Handel IG, Rose E, Querry D, Pugh CA, Ollier WE, Morgan KL,
Kennedy LJ, Sampson J, Summers KM, de Bronsvoort BM. Dogslife: a web-
based longitudinal study of Labrador Retriever health in the UK. BMC Vet
Res. 2013;9(1):1.
27. Welsh CP, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Murray JK. The neuter status of cats at four
and six months of age is strongly associated with the owners’intended age
of neutering. Vet Rec. 2013;172(22):578.
28. Jones PH, Radford AD, Noble PJ, Sánchez-Vizcaíno F, Menacere T, Heayns B,
Bolan S, Wardeh M, Gaskell RM, Dawson S. SAVSNET: collating veterinary
electronic health Records for Research and Surveillance. Online J Public
Health Inf. 2016;8:1.
29. Survey monkey. Survey Monkey [Online]. Survey Monkey. 2014. Available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/ [Accessed 7 July 2014].
30. Statulator beta. Sample Size Calculator for Estimating a Single Proportion
[Online]. Statulator beta. 2014. Available: http://statulator.com/SampleSize/
ss1P.html [Accessed 3 Mar 2017].
31. The Venom Coding Group. VeNom Veterinary Nomenclature [Online].
VeNom Coding Group. 2017. Available: http://www.venomcoding.org
[Accessed 5 Feb 2017].
32. The Kennel Club. Mate Select [Online]. The Kennel Club Limited. 2017.
Available: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/
[Accessed 5th Feb 2017].
33. Llewellyn A. Pedigree dog health survey. Vet Rec. 2014;175(23):597–8.
34. Microsoft Corporation. Excel 2016 [Online]. Microsoft Corporation. 2017.
Available: https://products.office.com/en-gb/excel [Accessed 20 Feb 2017].
35. Microsoft Corporation. Access [Online]. Microsoft Corporation. 2017. Available:
https://products.office.com/en-gb/access [Accessed 20 Feb 2017].
36. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing
[online]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. Available:
http://www.R-project.org/ [Accessed 20th Feb 2017]
37. Aickin M, Gensler H. Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research
results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:726–8.
38. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion:
comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):857–72.
39. Chambers JM, Cleveland WM, Kleiner B, Tukey PA. Comparing data
distributions. In graphical methods for data analysis, 62. Wadsworth
International Group: Belmont; 1983. isbn:0-87150-413-8.
40. Moshiro C, Heuch I, Åstrøm AN, Setel P, Kvåle G. Effect of recall on
estimation of non-fatal injury rates: a community based study in Tanzania.
Injury Prevent. 2005;11(1):48–52.
41. Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical
questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science.
1987;236(4798):157–61.
42. O’Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. Prevalence
of disorders recorded in cats attending primary-care veterinary practices in
England. Vet J. 2014;202:286–91.
43. Knox SA, Harrison CM, Britt HC, Henderson JV. Estimating prevalence of
common chronic morbidities in Australia. Med J Aust.
2008;189(2):66–70.
44. Guptill L, Glickman L, Glickman N. Time trends and risk factors for diabetes
mellitus in dogs: analysis of veterinary medical data base records (1970–1999).
Vet J. 2003;165(3):240–7.
45. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes
estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004;
27(5):1047–53.
46. Day MJ. One health: the small animal dimension. Vet Rec. 2010;
167(22):847.
47. Proschowsky HF, Rugbjerg H, Ersbøll AK. Morbidity of purebred dogs in
Denmark. Prevent Vet Med. 2003;58(1):53–62.
48. Nødtvedt A, Egenvall A, Bergvall K, Hedhammar Å. Incidence of and risk
factors for atopic dermatitis in a Swedish population of insured dogs. Vet
Rec. 2006;159(8):241–6.
49. The Kennel Club. Dog Health Group report 2015 HIP SCORES BY BREED. The
Kennel Club. 2016. Available: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/
613537/hips.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug 2016].
50. Lewis TW, Blott SC, Woolliams JA. Comparative analyses of genetic trends
and prospects for selection against hip and elbow dysplasia in 15 UK dog
breeds. BMC Genet. 2013;14(1):1.
51. Egenvall A, Nodtvedt A, von Euler H. Bone tumors in a population of 400
000 insured Swedish dogs up to 10 y of age: incidence and survival. Can J
Vet Res. 2007;71(4):292–9.
52. Serfass P, Chetboul V, Sampedrano CC, Nicolle A, Benalloul T, Laforge H,
Gau C, Hébert C, Pouchelon JL, Tissier R. Retrospective study of 942 small-
sized dogs: prevalence of left apical systolic heart murmur and left-sided
heart failure, critical effects of breed and sex. J Vet Cardiol. 2006;8(1):11–8.
53. Birkegård AC, Reimann MJ, Martinussen T, Häggström J, Pedersen HD, Olsen
LH. Breeding restrictions decrease the prevalence of Myxomatous mitral
valve disease in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels over an 8-to 10-year period.
J Vet Intern Med. 2016;30(1):63–8.
54. Obenshain MKMAT. Application of data mining techniques to healthcare
data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:690–5.
55. Yoo I, Alafaireet P, Marinov M, Pena-Hernandez K, Gopidi R, Chang J-F, Hua
L. Data mining in healthcare and biomedicine: a survey of the literature.
J Med Syst. 2012;36:2431–48.
56. Fasanella FJ, Shivley JM, Wardlaw JL, Givaruangsawat S. Brachycephalic
airway obstructive syndrome in dogs: 90 cases (1991–2008). J Am Vet Med
Assoc. 2010;237(9):1048–51.
57. Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes: absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence. BMJ. 1995;311:485.
58. Jin K, Hoffman JM, Creevy KE, O’neill DG, DEL P. Multiple morbidities in
companion dogs: a novel model for investigating age-related disease.
Pathobiol Aging Age Relat Dis. 2016;6:1–9.
59. Page GP, George V, Go RC, Page PZ, Allison DB. “Are we there yet?”: deciding
when one has demonstrated specific genetic causation in complex diseases
and quantitative traits. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73(4):711–9.
60. Wood JL, Lakhani KH, Rogers K. Heritability and epidemiology of canine
hip-dysplasia score and its components in Labrador retrievers in the United
Kingdom. Prevent Vet Med. 2002;55(2):95–108.
61. British Veterinary Association. Hip Dysplasia Scheme. 2013. British Veterinary
Association/Kennel Club. Avialable: https://www.bva.co.uk/Canine-Health-
Schemes/Hip-scheme/ [Accessed 20 July 2016].
62. British Veterinary Association. Chiari Malformation/Syringomyelia Scheme
(CM/SM Scheme). 2013. British Veterinary Association/Kennel Club. Available:
https://www.bva.co.uk/Canine-Health-Schemes/CM-SM-scheme/ [Accessed
20 July 2016].
63. British Veterinary Association. Elbow Scheme. 2013. British Veterinary
Association/Kennel Club. Available: https://www.bva.co.uk/Canine-Health-
Schemes/Elbow-scheme/ [Accessed 20 July 2016].
64. British Veterinary Association. Eye Scheme. 2013. British Veterinary Association/
Kennel Club/International Sheep Dog Society Available: https://www.bva.co.uk/
Canine-Health-Schemes/Eye-scheme/ (2013). Accessed 20 July 2016.
65. The Kennel Club. DNA Screening Schemes and Results. 2014. The Kennel
Club. Available: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/health/breeding-for-
health/dna-screening-schemes-and-results/ [Accessed 20 July 2016].
66. The Kennel Club. Mate Select Estimated Breeding Value. 2014. The Kennel
Club. Available: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/
ebv/Default.aspx [Accessed 20 July 2016].
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
Wiles et al. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology (2017) 4:8 Page 18 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
