Quote:
Originally Posted by gemy  AHA indeed. You really need to look very closely at the wordage, and how it was swung in the Vizslas report and the above quote. I am not sure why your authors quote above was even looking at human research. Other than perhaps a review of the literature required IDK 10,000 studies which quite simply don't exist in vet medicine, which I would think is probably true But still in one way your quote is saying, there is not enough evidence because there is Not enough evidence to say one way or another if there was strong evidence to support mammary tumours.
That is different to the Vizslas report stating that another author said the evidence was "weak and not a sound basis...et" There is a strong indication that report is referencing the author above. And if so, they have mis-represented their statement in my mind. The fact that they were unable to develop strong evidence because there was simply not enough body of evidence available, is not the same thing as saying there is weak evidence. The might we can't take a position either way for strong or weak evidence, as sic there is not enough evidence to make a decision on this.
So to my mind the question is, given that dog population is a whole lot less than human population, with I would think a narrower gene pool, how much is massive for dog research? I mean how many studies, etc etc. |
Systematic review articles are notoriously biased, since they rely upon the authors to pick and choose which articles they think are relevant. The best thing to do is to read as many primary research articles as possible, look at their materials and methods, and decide which ones are the best quality. The scientific consensus is that spaying reduces the rate of mammary cancer, so I'm surprised at the viszlas conclusions, but again, it may be a breed-specific effect.