ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
- Article
- Sensitivity and specificity ofHeliyon · 2023Article
- Interactions between Humans and Dogs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recent Updates and Future Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Molecular tests are useful in detecting COVID-19, but they are expensive in developing countries. COVID-19-sniffing dogs are an alternative due to their reported sensitivity (>80%) and specificity (>90%). However, most of the published evidence is experimental, and there is a need to determine the performance of the dogs in field conditions. Hence, we aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19-sniffing dogs in the field. Methods: We trained four dogs with sweat and three dogs with saliva of COVID-19-positive patients, respectively, for 4.5 months. The samples were obtained from a health center in Hermosillo, Sonora, with the restriction to spend 5 min per patient. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Two sweat-sniffing dogs reached 76 and 80% sensitivity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the random value of 50%, and 75 and 88% specificity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the 50% value. The 95% CI of the sensitivity and specificity of the other two sweat dogs overlapped the 50% value. Two saliva-sniffing dogs had 70 and 78% sensitivity, and the 95% CI of their sensitivity and specificity did not overlap the 50% value. The 95% CI of the third dog's sensitivity and specificity overlapped the 50% value. Conclusion: Four of the six dogs were able to detect positive samples of patients with COVID-19, with sensitivity and specificity values significantly different from random in the field. We considered the performance of the dogs promising because it is reasonable to expect that with gauze exposed for a longer time to sweat and saliva of people with COVID-19, their detection capacity would improve. The target is to reach the sensitivity range requested by the World Health Organization for the performance of an antigen test (≥80% sensitivity, ≥97% specificity). If so, dogs could become important allies for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in developing countries.
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.