ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
An evaluation of a canine dry wipe decontamination kit.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Decontamination of working dogs at the point of exposure is critical for military, law enforcement, and search and rescue operations in austere or hazardous environments where water may be scarce and conventional wet decontamination poses logistical and safety challenges. Prototype dry (waterless) wipe decontamination kits were evaluated for efficacy in removing a surrogate contaminant (GloGerm™) when used by canine handler teams performing total body field decontaminations. The prototype kit procedures employed a sequence of three microfiber towel types: (1) dry, to remove gross contaminants; (2) wet, saturated with a surfactant to clean away residual contaminants; and, (3) dry, to remove final contamination and residual surfactant. Several variables were investigated to refine the final design, test the effectiveness of decontamination at different anatomical locations on the canine, and evaluate the handlers' success in removing the surrogate contaminant after reading the instructional pamphlet alone versus having the instructions and receiving in-person training on kit use. Methods: Three form factors (single towel, multi-towel small, and multi-towel large) and simulated contamination at three anatomical regions (back, inguinal, and forelimb) were tested by 64 canine handler teams randomized to "trained" (15-min verbal instruction plus pamphlet) or "untrained" (pamphlet only) groups. Results: Across all form factors and training groups, mean removal efficiencies were highest on the back (91.38% ± 0.18), followed by the forelimb (82.04% ± 0.26) and inguinal region (70.15% ± 0.31). No statistically significant differences were observed among the form factors or training variables. Average decontamination time was 9 min and 24 s (range = 3 min 4 s to 26 min 0 s). Discussion: Dry wipe decontamination can provide rapid and effective removal of contaminants without water, improving canine and handler safety and enabling early intervention at the point of exposure prior to additional wet decontamination or medical treatment when necessary. Personnel with minimal training can effectively conduct dry wipe decontamination.
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.