Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34368671›Full record

ArticleInfection prevention in practice2019

Detecting

M K Charles, Y Wang, T Zurberg, J Kinna, E Bryce

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2022
    Article
  3. Thiol Metabolism and Volatile Metabolome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  4. The State of Animal-Assisted Interventions: Addressing the Contemporary Issues that will Shape the Future.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M K CharlesDivision of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Vancouver Coastal Health and University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Y WangUniversity of British Columbia Undergraduate Integrated Sciences Program, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
T ZurbergQuality and Patient Safety Department, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
J KinnaQuality and Patient Safety Department, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
E BryceDivision of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Vancouver Coastal Health and University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CanineClostridioides difficileEnvironmental microbiologyReliability of results

Identifiers

PMID34368671
PMCPMC8336037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.