Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783627›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Detection of Post-COVID-19 Patients Using Medical Scent Detection Dogs-A Pilot Study.

Friederike Twele, Nele Alexandra Ten Hagen, Sebastian Meller, Claudia Schulz, Albert Osterhaus, Paula Jendrny, Hans Ebbers, Isabell Pink, Nora Drick, Tobias Welte and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Friederike TweleDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Nele Alexandra Ten HagenDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Sebastian MellerDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Claudia SchulzResearch Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Albert OsterhausResearch Center for Emerging Infections and Zoonoses, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Paula JendrnyDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Hans EbbersKynoScience UG, Hörstel, Germany.
Isabell PinkDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Nora DrickDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Tobias WelteDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Esther SchalkeBundeswehr Medical Service Headquarters, Koblenz, Germany.
Holger Andreas VolkDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEBundeswehr Joint Medical Service · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing number of COVID-19 patients experiencing long-term symptoms months after their acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Previous research proved dogs' ability to detect acute SARS-CoV-2 infections, but has not yet shown if dogs also indicate samples of patients with post-COVID-19 condition (Long COVID). Nine dogs, previously trained to detect samples of acute COVID-19 patients, were confronted with samples of Long COVID patients in two testing scenarios. In test scenario I (samples of acute COVID-19 vs. Long COVID) dogs achieved a mean sensitivity (for acute COVID-19) of 86.7% (95%CI: 75.4-98.0%) and a specificity of 95.8% (95%CI: 92.5-99.0%). When dogs were confronted with Long COVID and negative control samples in scenario IIa, dogs achieved a mean sensitivity (for Long COVID) of 94.4 (95%CI: 70.5-100.0%) and a specificity of 96.1% (95%CI: 87.6-100.0%). In comparison, when acute SARS-CoV-2 positive samples and negative control samples were comparatively presented (scenario IIb), a mean sensitivity of 86.9 (95%CI: 55.7-100.0%) and a specificity of 88.1% (95%CI: 82.7-93.6%) was attained. This pilot study supports the hypothesis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being long-term present after the initial infection in post-COVID-19 patients. Detection dogs, trained with samples of acute COVID-19 patients, also identified samples of Long COVID patients with a high sensitivity when presented next to samples of healthy individuals. This data may be used for further studies evaluating the pathophysiology underlying Long COVID and the composition of specific VOC-patterns released by SARS-CoV-2 infected patients throughout the course of this complex disease.

Indexed as

COVID-19Long COVIDSARS-CoV-2scent detection dogsvolatile organic compound (VOC)

Identifiers

PMID35783627
PMCPMC9245071
OpenAlexW4283022405

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.