ArticleInfection prevention in practice2019
Detecting
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dogs' ability to detect an inflammatory immune response in cattle via olfaction.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- In search of COVID-19: The ability of biodetection canines to detect COVID-19 odours from clinical samples.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2022Article
- Thiol Metabolism and Volatile Metabolome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- The State of Animal-Assisted Interventions: Addressing the Contemporary Issues that will Shape the Future.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Trained canines are capable of detecting Aim: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of two canine detection teams for their ability to discriminate between scent pads containing CD-toxin-positive and -negative odours and their ability to discriminate between clostridial strains. Methods: During a six-month period, two canine teams were tested weekly for their ability to detect CD-toxin-positive odours and discriminate between these and -negative odours. To further determine the canines' discrimination capability, scent pads impregnated with odours from reference isolates representing common CD toxin types (including toxin-negative CD isolates) or from clinical isolates representing other clostridial species were used. Results: A total of 264 samples were tested with an overall sensitivity of 94.7% (Team A) and 86.8% (Team B) and specificities of 96.9% and 98.7%, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was very good (Cohen's kappa 0.87). When challenged with toxin- and non-toxin-producing strains, the teams alerted on 96.3% of all CD isolate odours (including nontoxigenic strains) and 46.7% of closely related species. Conclusions: The canine teams exhibited strong inter-rater reliability on both clinical faecal specimens and reference CD isolates (both toxin and non-toxin producing) but were challenged to discriminate between CD and closely related clostridial species. These findings strongly support the development of scent detection programmes provided dogs and their handlers are properly trained and used in the right context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.