3 ms·

Pooling the data of 3 837 005 participants, dog ownership was associated with a 24% risk reduction for all-cause mortality as compared to nonownership (relative

Pooling the data of 3 837 005 participants, dog ownership was associated with a 24% risk reduction for all-cause mortality as compared to nonownership (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67–0.86). In analyses of studies evaluating cardiovascular mortality, dog ownership conferred a 31% risk reduction for cardiovascular death (relative risk, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.67–0.71; I2, 5.1%). Dog ownership is associated with lower risk of death over the long term, which is possibly driven by a reduction in cardiovascular mortality. These results hold implications for future studies on lifestyle interventions.

tomp 7y ago
> dog ownership was associated with a 24% risk reduction for all-cause mortality What does that mean? Do dog owners have only 76% chance of dying, as opposed to 100% like the rest of us? I'm probably misinterpreting the statement...
- jonasmst 7y ago
  Usually, in survival analysis, it means that at any point in time, the likelihood of an event (e.g. death, heart-disease, whatever they're measuring) occurring for dog-owners is 76% of that of non-dog owners. The risk varies from time to time, e.g. with age, and it's 76% of that risk. If the risk at a certain point is 10% for non-dog owners, it's 7.6% for dog owners. It's not like dog people are immortal.
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    > It's not like dog people are immortal. Depends on how many dogs you own. With enough dogs, you can invert your death likelihood stats. Though, I imagine that would mean as you age, you buy more dogs. Moving to the country seems required to house all of the dogs. Furthermore, the number of dogs would depend on how the math worked on the 76% of risk. Perhaps for true immortality we'd need an infinite number of dogs.