ArticleScientific reports2026
Canine "Sniffin' Sticks" enable behavioural olfactometry to complement neurological examination in dogs.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Olfactory function assessment in dogs remains limited compared to human medicine. This study aimed to develop a canine version of "Sniffin' Sticks" (canSSt) as a clinical behavioural olfactometry tool and to establish normative olfactory thresholds across sex, age, and cranial morphology in dogs. Eighty healthy client-owned dogs underwent clinical and neurological examination. A custom set of 15 felt pens containing serial tenfold eugenol dilutions (smell of cloves) was used to determine thresholds. Dogs were sequentially exposed to increasing concentrations. Behavioural responses were assessed by direct observation and independent video review. The test revealed high intra- and interobserver agreement (ICC 0.77-0.91). The mean threshold was dilution step 14.09 (SD ± 0.79), i.e., 8.71 × 10
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.