Release on pet-friendly association study is all cute bark with not much bite

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

We learn from the release: “The abundance of these two bacteria were increased twofold when there was a pet in the house,” and those effects take place “during pregnancy as well as during the first three months of the baby’s life.”

But we’re left wondering, twofold of what?  And what kind of effects are related to a twofold increase in these two bacteria? The release doesn’t tell us.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There are no harms mentioned in the release release. Presumably there are some dangers of exposing babies in the womb and newborns to pet dogs and cats but we aren’t given any hint that they exist or what they are. One of the most common “harms” associated with furry pets is allergies, the very condition this study purports to lessen or prevent.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The causal relationship suggested in the headline is not warranted. At this stage of the research, a more accurate headline might be: “Pet exposure may or may not reduce allergy and obesity.”

The release would have been improved had it provided more discussion about the research. It noted the Canadian government has been running a study of children’s asthma and dog cohabitation for more than two decades.

But the release omits some of the basics about the research. For example, it mentions it analyzed infant stool samples but it doesn’t tell us how many samples nor from how many children. It also says there were “higher levels of two types of microbes associated with lower risks of allergic disease and obesity” in the samples. What is considered a “high” level? What’s considered average?

The published study tells us that the gut bacteria of 746 infants (a sub-sample from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development Study) were studied through fecal samples taken at 3.3 months. Researchers compared the bacteria found in the stool samples among those with or without pet exposure during pregnancy and 3 months after giving birth. They found that the infants whose families kept pets (a little more than half) had a higher presence of the Ruminococcus and Oscillospira bacteria which have been negatively associated with childhood allergies and obesity.

We do credit the release for at least acknowledging through a quote from the lead researcher that “It’s far too early to predict how this finding will play out in the future.”

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

There is no obvious disease mongering here, but the release might plant the suggestion that if readers don’t own a dog and don’t expose their infant to dog-related bacteria, then they may be exposing their children to a greater risk of some form of allergy or even obesity later on. It’s important for releases about association studies like this one was to describe the prevalence of a disease or condition so that people have a sense of what the normal rate of allergies might be in households with or without a dog.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

This study is focused on describing the association between allergies and pets that were observed over a long-term study. But since the ultimate goal seems to be reducing allergies and asthma there are alternatives to exposing your baby to a dog to prevent them, such as incremental exposure and allergy screening tests. These alternatives were worth a brief mention.