Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35577391›Full record

Trial reportBMJ global health2022

Scent dogs in detection of COVID-19: triple-blinded randomised trial and operational real-life screening in airport setting.

Anu Kantele, Juuso Paajanen, Soile Turunen, Sari H Pakkanen, Anu Patjas, Laura Itkonen, Elina Heiskanen, Maija Lappalainen, Loic Desquilbet, Olli Vapalahti and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The Role of Olfaction in Dogs: Evolution, Biology, and Human-Oriented Work.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Scent Detection Threshold of Trained Dogs toAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

11 authors.

Anu Kantele *Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland anu.kantele@hus.fi.ORCID 0000-0002-0004-1000
Juuso Paajanen *Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Soile TurunenSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Sari H PakkanenMeilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Anu PatjasMeilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Laura ItkonenDepartment of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Elina HeiskanenDepartment of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Maija LappalainenHUS Diagnostic Center, HUSLAB, Clinical Microbiology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Loic DesquilbetDepartment of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Ecole nationale vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Olli VapalahtiHUS Diagnostic Center, HUSLAB, Clinical Microbiology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anna Hielm-BjörkmanDepartment of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate scent dogs' diagnostic accuracy in identification of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We conducted a randomised triple-blinded validation trial, and a real-life study at the Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport, Finland.

methodsFour dogs were trained to detect COVID-19 using skin swabs from individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Our controlled triple-blinded validation study comprised four identical sets of 420 parallel samples (from 114 individuals tested positive and 306 negative by RT-PCR), randomly presented to each dog over seven trial sessions. In a real-life setting the dogs screened skin swabs from 303 incoming passengers all concomitantly examined by nasal swab SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Our main outcomes were variables of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for scent dog identification in comparison with RT-PCR.

resultsOur validation experiments had an overall accuracy of 92% (95% CI 90% to 93%), a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 89% to 94%) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) compared with RT-PCR. For our dogs, trained using the wild-type virus, performance was less accurate for the alpha variant (89% for confirmed wild-type vs 36% for alpha variant, OR 14.0, 95% CI 4.5 to 43.4). In the real-life setting, scent detection and RT-PCR matched 98.7% of the negative swabs. Scant airport prevalence (0.47%) did not allow sensitivity testing; our only SARS-CoV-2 positive swab was not identified (alpha variant). However, ad hoc analysis including predefined positive spike samples showed a total accuracy of 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%).

conclusionsThis large randomised controlled triple-blinded validation study with a precalculated sample size conducted at an international airport showed that trained scent dogs screen airport passenger samples with high accuracy. One of our findings highlights the importance of continuous retraining as new variants emerge. Using scent dogs may present a valuable approach for high-throughput, rapid screening of large numbers of people.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AirportsAnimalsDogsHumansOdorantsClinical trialCOVID-19Infections, diseases, disorders, injuriesPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID35577391
PMCPMC9108438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.