Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTeddykins  Also, we cannot generalize on the basis of ONE study. What supporting studies have been made? What contradictory information is there? Are we to assume none? Science doesn't make assumptions. If there is no further data, apart from this one study, then the study is not complete.
That is the nature of science and that is why I would say take the results with a grain of salt i.e. extreme caution.
ALSO, having worked for an insurance company, there needs to be a declaration of BIAS. Of course, it helps to sell policies when studies are generated to increase fear of risk. That is the nature of insurance for risk averse populations. If there is no fear of risk, there is no premium!
I'm done for now - I'm distracted by the smell of chicken dinner.  |
The study cites many references that both support and contradict their results, and discusses them in the discussion section. Of course, the introduction has an extensive review of the literature...
And here is the missing declaration of bias:
Conflicts of interest None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Here is the statement of funding:
Acknowledgements Agria Pet Insurance kindly allowed us to use their database. Financial support was provided by Thure F. and Karin Forsbergs Research Foundation, M. Forsgrens Research Foundation and Agria Insurance and The Swedish Kennel Club Research Foundation.
BTW, it could be argued that since insurance companies really hate to pay claims unless they have to, that's another reason why these data could under-report the true rates of pyometra and mammary tumors.