Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35316576›Full record

ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2022

Evaluation of canine detection of COVID-19 infected individuals under controlled settings.

Anne-Lise Chaber, Susan Hazel, Brett Matthews, Alexander Withers, Guillaume Alvergnat, Dominique Grandjean, Charles Caraguel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Combining detection dogs with air extraction methodology to expose wildlife trafficking in containerized cargo.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Anne-Lise ChaberSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9042-8753
Susan HazelSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, Australia.
Brett MatthewsDetector Dog Program, Operational Strategy and Coordination, Australian Border Force, Bulla, Australia.
Alexander WithersSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, Australia.
Guillaume AlvergnatInternational Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Interior of the UAE, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Dominique GrandjeanEcole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Université Paris Est, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Charles CaraguelSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AUÉcole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort · FRGovernment of Western Australia · AUMinistry of Interior · ITNorth Metropolitan Health Service · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the standard diagnostic method to detect symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, RT-PCR results are not immediate and may falsely be negative before an infected individual sheds viral particles in the upper airways where swabs are collected. Infected individuals emit volatile organic compounds in their breath and sweat that are detectable by trained dogs. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dog detection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fifteen dogs previously trained at two centres in Australia were presented to axillary sweat specimens collected from known SARS-CoV-2 human cases (n = 100) and non-cases (n = 414). The true infection status of the cases and non-cases were confirmed based on RT-PCR results as well as clinical presentation. Across dogs, the overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 95.3% (95%CI: 93.1-97.6%) and diagnostic specificity (DSp) was 97.1% (95%CI: 90.7-100.0%). The DSp decreased significantly when non-case specimens were collected over 1 min rather than 20 min (p value = .004). The location of evaluation did not impact the detection performances. The accuracy of detection varied across dogs and experienced dogs revealed a marginally better DSp (p value = .016). The potential and limitations of this alternative detection tool are discussed.

Indexed as

COVID-19AnimalsCOVID-19 TestingDogsHumansSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic CompoundsCOVID-19detection dogsdiagnostic accuracydiagnostic sensitivitydiagnostic specificitySARS-Co-2 canine detectionscreening tool

Identifiers

PMID35316576
PMCPMC9115492
OpenAlexW4221130440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.