906-patient facial dog bite study just published. Breed and severity data both collected. Never cross-tabulated. Not once.

Rothka et al., OTO Open, 2026. DOI: 10.1002/oto2.70233. Open access, Penn State Hershey, Level 1 trauma centre, 906 patients, 11 years.

The chart review captured all of this:

• Breed (68 breeds, reported for 686 patients)
• Hospital admission yes/no
• Operative vs bedside vs conservative management
• Anatomical location (15 facial subunits)
• Number of injuries per patient
• IV vs oral antibiotics
• Provocation type
• Family dog vs other

Breed appears once, as a raw count in Table 3. After that it vanishes from the analysis. The paper never asks whether breed predicts severity. Not in the results. Not in the discussion. Not in a supplementary table.

What Table 3 actually shows

Top of the breed list:

Breed	n	%
Pitbull	154	22.4
Labrador	72	10.5
German Shepherd	48	7.0
Rottweiler	24	3.5
Husky	23	3.4
Golden Retriever	23	3.4
Bulldog	22	3.2
Poodle	20	2.9
Mastiff	19	2.8
Doberman	18	2.6

Pitbull is more than double the next breed. The discussion brushes this aside with "it is intuitive that the most common breeds are most commonly involved in dog bites" and points at AKC popularity rankings. Two paragraphs later, the same discussion notes the AKC doesn't recognise the Pitbull as a breed. The popularity argument is applied to a breed the cited authority doesn't recognise.

No population denominator is provided anywhere.

The five tables that should exist and don't

1. Operative repair by breed. 16.9% overall went to theatre under GA. Was the rate the same for every breed? The paper doesn't say. The data is in the chart review.

2. Admission by breed. 17.0% overall admitted. Their own admission rate runs higher than published comparators (9.7–13.2%). They don't ask whether that's driven by which breeds attended.

3. Injuries per patient by breed. 906 patients, 2,061 injuries. That's 2.27 wounds per patient on average. Multi-site injury is a known severity marker. Breed-stratified version: never reported.

4. Anatomical distribution by breed. Table 4 breaks 1,535 injuries across 15 facial subunits across 12 years. Beautiful table. No version of it by breed.

5. IV vs oral antibiotics by breed. Ampicillin-sulbactam (IV, 17.5%) implies inpatient or severe. Amoxicillin-clavulanate (oral, 62.7%) is the outpatient default. The IV ratio by breed isn't reported.

Every one of these is a single column in the spreadsheet they already had.

What replaces the analysis

Three moves, repeated:

>"it is intuitive that the most common breeds are most commonly involved in dog bites"

No denominator. Argument from intuition, not data.

>"Given there is no consensus in what breeds bite most often, it is important to educate patients on how to engage with dogs."A 906-patient series is one of the larger contributions you can make to that consensus. Citing the lack of consensus as a reason not to add to it is circular.

A 906-patient series is one of the larger contributions you can make to that consensus. Citing the lack of consensus as a reason not to add to it is circular.

>

There are more than a dozen medical studies showing exactly that.
WHY THE OMISSION?

Paper's open access. Tables 1, 3, 4, 5. Discussion starts page 4.
Read it yourself and tell me what I'm missing.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403995604_Evaluating_Dog_Bite-Induced_Facial_Trauma_A_Study_From_a_Single_Tertiary_Care_Center

A new 906-patient facial dog bite study just dropped — and the authors had every variable they needed to test whether breed predicts severity.

They didn't.

This is a retrospective cohort from Penn State Hershey Medical Center, a Level 1 trauma centre. 906 patients, 2,061 injuries, 11 years of data (2012–2023). It is one of the larger single-centre facial dog bite series in the recent literature, and it is open access.

The dataset is unusually rich. The authors captured:

• Breed (68 unique breeds documented across 686 patients with breed reported)
• Hospital admission (yes/no)
• Management pathway (operative repair / bedside repair / conservative)
• Anatomical location (15 categories, from cheek down to jaw)
• Number of injuries per patient
• Antibiotic class (intravenous vs oral; 24 different drugs)
• Rabies and tetanus prophylaxis requirements
• Provocation circumstance (20 categories, from "playing with dog" to "unprovoked")
• Dog–patient relationship (family / other / not mentioned)

Everything needed to ask a basic question is in the chart review. The question is:

>The paper does not ask it. Not once. Across ten pages of results and discussion, breed is reported only as a raw count in Table 3, and then dropped. There is no cross-tabulation between breed and any severity outcome anywhere in the paper.

What follows is what the data would show if it were stratified and a list of the specific tables that should exist in this paper and don't.

What the paper does report on breed

Table 3 gives the breed counts. The top of the list:

Breed	n	% of reported
Pitbull	154	22.4%
Labrador Retriever	72	10.5%
German Shepherd	48	7.0%
Rottweiler	24	3.5%
Husky	23	3.4%
Golden Retriever	23	3.4%
Bulldog	22	3.2%
Poodle	20	2.9%
Mastiff	19	2.8%
Doberman Pinscher	18	2.6%

Pitbulls are the single largest category by a factor of more than two over the next most common breed. Pitbulls plus Rottweilers plus Mastiffs plus Doberman plus Bulldog plus Cane Corso (1) plus American Staffordshire Terrier (3) plus Akita (9) account for roughly 35% of the breed-identified injuries.

The paper notes this in one sentence in the discussion, then immediately neutralises it by observing that Labradors and German Shepherds are the second and fourth most common breeds in the US per the American Kennel Club, and concludes: "it is intuitive that the most common breeds are most commonly involved in dog bites."

What the paper has, but does not report, is the severity profile that goes with each breed.

The five stratifications that should be in this paper and aren't

1. Operative repair rate by breed

The paper reports that 16.9% of patients overall (153/906) required operative repair under general anaesthetic, 65.9% (597) were managed at bedside, and 17.9% (162) were managed conservatively.

A breed-stratified version of this would be a 3 (management) × 10 (top breeds) table. Every data point exists in the chart review. The authors built it for the aggregate. They did not break it out by breed.

2. Hospital admission rate by breed

The paper reports 17.0% overall admission (154/906). It notes this is higher than the 9.7%–13.2% range reported in prior literature, and lists the established risk factors for admission as: infected wounds, complicated injuries, immunocompromise, prior evaluation for the same injury, and injuries to the head, upper extremity, or multiple anatomic locations.

It does not ask whether admission rate varies by breed. The data is in the same chart review.

3. Number of injuries per patient by breed

The paper has 906 patients and 2,061 recorded injuries, giving a crude average of 2.27 injuries per patient. This is a striking number on its own — most patients have more than one bite wound — but it is reported only as an aggregate.

The same calculation, broken down by breed, is one column in a spreadsheet. Multi-site injury is a recognised marker of severity in the dog bite literature, including in papers Rothka et al. themselves cite. The authors have the per-patient injury count and the per-patient breed. They never cross them.

4. Anatomical distribution by breed

Table 4 gives a beautifully detailed breakdown of 1,535 anatomical injury sites across 15 facial subunits and across 12 years. The cheek, lip, and nose account for 55.7% of injuries.

There is no version of this table broken down by breed.

Whether Pitbull bites cluster in particular facial subunits versus, say, Jack Russell Terrier bites, is exactly the kind of question a facial trauma series should be answering. The "higher cranial mass to body ratio" in young children explains why facial bites predominate in paediatrics — it does not explain which breeds produce which patterns of facial injury. The paper has the data. It does not ask the question.

5. Antibiotic intensity and IV vs oral by breed

Table 5 lists 24 antibiotics. The top three are amoxicillin-clavulanate (62.7%), ampicillin-sulbactam (17.5%), and clindamycin (5.2%). Ampicillin-sulbactam is intravenous; amoxicillin-clavulanate is typically oral. IV antibiotics imply hospital admission, infected wounds, or wounds judged too severe for oral cover alone.

The IV-to-oral ratio by breed is, again, a one-column calculation that does not appear in the paper.

The minimum addendum that would resolve this

A single supplementary table with the following columns:

Breed (top 10)	n	Operative %	Bedside %	Conservative %	Admission %	Injuries per patient	IV antibiotic %

Ten rows. Eight columns. Every figure derivable from the existing chart review. The total computational burden is roughly half a working day for someone with the underlying spreadsheet.

The absence of this table from a paper whose explicit objective is to "evaluate patterns, demographics, and clinical risk factors for facial trauma from dog bites" is the omission worth pointing at.

What they didn't cite and should have

Drawing on your existing omissions inventory, applied specifically to Rothka et al.'s paper:

Tier 1: Direct comparator papers on breed and severity at Level 1 trauma centres

These are the papers a 906-patient facial trauma series at a Level 1 trauma centre should be in direct dialogue with:

Paper	Why its absence matters specifically for Rothka
Bini JK et al. (2011) J Trauma 70(1):69–74. "Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs."	15-year Level 1 trauma centre series — the closest methodological mirror to Rothka's own design. Used Injury Severity Score. Found pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 71% of injuries with higher ISS and greater charges. Rothka has the same setting, larger n, and could have replicated or contested the finding. They do neither.
Greenhalgh DG et al. (2017) J Pediatr Surg. "Pit bull terrier attacks cause more complex injuries, longer hospital stays and higher hospital charges."	Title alone states the finding. Rothka has admission data, management data, and breed data. Not cited.
Golinko MS, Arslanian B, Williams JK (2017) Clin Pediatr 56(4):316–325. "Characteristics of 1616 consecutive dog bite injuries at a single institution."	1,616 consecutive cases with wound complexity grading by breed. Bull breeds over-represented in severe injuries. Foundational comparator for a single-institution series of this size. Not cited.
O'Brien DC et al. (2015) Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 153(3):448–453. "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment."	Same journal family as OTO Open. Head and neck focus. Not cited.

Tier 2: Forensic and fatality literature

Rothka acknowledges the CDC fatality data (ref 16) but cites no forensic series:

• Sarenbo S, Svensson PA (2021) Forensic Sci Int — European fatalities 1995–2016 with breed breakdowns
• Patronek GJ et al. (2013) JAVMA — frequently cited against breed identification but with internal data that supports breed disproportionality; Rothka does not cite it at all, which is actually a methodological gap regardless of one's position
• Raghavan M (2008) Can Vet J — Canadian fatalities by breed

Tier 3: Behavioural and aggression literature

What it does not cite:

• Christensen E et al. (2007) Appl Anim Behav Sci — Cornell study finding 40.9% of dogs passing standardised temperament tests subsequently exhibited aggressive behaviour. Directly relevant to whether behaviour-based assessment is a reliable preventive instrument
• Schilder MBH, Vinke CM, van der Borg JAM (2019) J Vet Behav — breed-type differences in severe aggression and intraspecific killing
• Hoffman CL, Harrison N, Wolff L, Westgarth C (2014) "Is that dog a Pit Bull?" — documents directional misclassification, relevant to Rothka's 31.3% unknown-breed rate
• Philpotts I et al. (2024) Animals — RSPCA DogKind campaign evaluation showing limited behaviour change from education campaigns. Directly relevant to Rothka's "targeted education is necessary" conclusion
• Jakeman M et al. (2020) BMJ Paediatrics Open — explicit finding that "education alone is unlikely to prevent dog bites." Rothka's conclusion contradicts this without engaging with it

Tier 4: Surgical reconstruction literature relevant to a facial trauma series

For a paper whose central clinical contribution is management pathway data (operative / bedside / conservative), the surgical reconstruction literature is thinly cited:

• Akhtar N et al. (2010) J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg — paediatric dog bite facial reconstruction outcomes
• Wei LA et al. (2013) Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg — periorbital dog bites (Hurst 2020 is cited but Wei is the larger comparator)
• Tu YK et al. (2020) — facial subunit reconstruction following dog bite