ArticlePloS one2021
Highly sensitive scent-detection of COVID-19 patients in vivo by trained dogs.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sniffer dogs performance is stable over time in detecting COVID-19 positive samples and agrees with the rapid antigen test in the field.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Trained dogs can detect the odor of Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Article
- ƩS COVID-19 is a rapid high throughput and sensitive one-step quadruplex real-time RT-PCR assay.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The science behind the nose: correlating volatile organic compound characterisation with canine biodetection of COVID-19.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- The Olfaction Ability of Medical Detection Canine to Detect Prostate Cancer From Urine Samples: Progress Captured in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of oncology · 2023Article
- Sensitivity and specificity ofHeliyon · 2023Article
- Potential for Early Noninvasive COVID-19 Detection Using Electronic-Nose Technologies and Disease-Specific VOC Metabolic Biomarkers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Interactions between Humans and Dogs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recent Updates and Future Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Sniffing out safety: canine detection and identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection from armpit sweat.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- 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
- Canine real-time detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the context of a mass screening event.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Expert considerations and consensus for using dogs to detect human SARS-CoV-2-infections.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The Use and Potential of Biomedical Detection Dogs During a Disease Outbreak.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 Infections From Other Viral Respiratory Infections by Scent Detection Dogs.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely and accurate diagnostics are essential to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, but no test satisfies both conditions. Dogs can scent-identify the unique odors of volatile organic compounds generated during infection by interrogating specimens or, ideally, the body of a patient. After training 6 dogs to detect SARS-CoV-2 by scent in human respiratory secretions (in vitro diagnosis), we retrained 5 of them to search and find the infection by scenting the patient directly (in vivo screening). Then, efficacy trials were designed to compare the diagnostic performance of the dogs against that of the rRT-PCR in 848 human subjects: 269 hospitalized patients (COVID-19 prevalence 30.1%), 259 hospital staff (prevalence 2.7%), and 320 government employees (prevalence 1.25%). The limit of detection in vitro was lower than 10-12 copies ssRNA/mL. During in vivo efficacy experiments, our 5 dogs detected 92 COVID-19 positive patients among the 848 study subjects. The alert (lying down) was immediate, with 95.2% accuracy and high sensitivity (95.9%; 95% C.I. 93.6-97.4), specificity (95.1%; 94.4-95.8), positive predictive value (69.7%; 65.9-73.2), and negative predictive value (99.5%; 99.2-99.7) in relation to rRT-PCR. Seventy-five days after finishing in vivo efficacy experiments, a real-life study (in vivo effectiveness) was executed among the riders of the Metro System of Medellin, deploying the human-canine teams without previous training or announcement. Three dogs were used to examine the scent of 550 volunteers who agreed to participate, both in test with canines and in rRT-PCR testing. Negative predictive value remained at 99.0% (95% C.I. 98.3-99.4), but positive predictive value dropped to 28.2% (95% C.I. 21.1-36.7). Canine scent-detection in vivo is a highly accurate screening test for COVID-19, and it detects more than 99% of infected individuals independent of key variables, such as disease prevalence, time post-exposure, or presence of symptoms. Additional training is required to teach the dogs to ignore odoriferous contamination under real-life conditions.
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.