ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Scent detection dogs detect a species of hard tick, Dermacentor albipictus, with comparable accuracy and efficiency to traditional tick drag surveys.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate surveillance data are critical for addressing tick and tick-borne pathogen risk to human and animal health. Current surveillance methods for detecting invading or expanding tick species are limited in their ability to scale efficiently to state or national levels. In this study we explored the potential use of scent detection dogs to assist field surveys for a hard tick species: Dermacentor albipictus.
methodsWe used a series of indoor and in situ training simulations to teach scent detection dogs to recognize D. albipictus scent, distinguish tick scent from associated vegetation, and develop a cautious search pattern. After training, we deployed both a scent detection dog survey team and a human-only survey team on transect and surveillance plot surveys then compared the detection rates and efficiency of both methods.
resultsScent detection dogs required more time and money to train on field surveys but were comparable to traditional tick drags when accounting for cost per unit area surveyed. There was a lack of agreement on positive (ticks present) versus negative (ticks not present) sites between the two methods, implying that neither method is particularly reliable at detecting D. albipictus.
conclusionsEstimating detection bias and false negative rates for tick surveillance methods such as tick drags will be important for accurately evaluating tick-borne disease risk across space and into the future. We found scent detection dogs to be a reasonable alternative sampling approach to consider when ticks are at low abundance or patchily distributed such as during tick range expansion or novel invasions. Scent detection dogs may also be useful for sampling for ticks in areas or along surfaces that are difficult to sample with the traditional tick drag technique like at ports of entry or livestock competitions.
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.