Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

Sebastian Meller; Charles Caraguel; Friederike Twele; Marios Charalambous; Clara Schoneberg; Anne-Lise Chaber; Loïc Desquilbet; Dominique Grandjean; Fernando O Mardones; Lothar Kreienbrock; Stéphane de la Rocque; Holger A Volk

doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002

Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

Sebastian Meller
, Charles Caraguel
, Friederike Twele
, Marios Charalambous
, Clara Schoneberg
, Anne-Lise Chaber
, Loïc Desquilbet
, Dominique Grandjean
, Fernando O Mardones
, Lothar Kreienbrock
, Stéphane de la Rocque
, Holger A Volk

Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

PURPOSE: To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.

METHODS: Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.

RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.

CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	68-85
Number of pages	18
Journal	Annals of Epidemiology
Volume	85
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002
Publication status	Published - Sept 2023

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Animals
Dogs
Humans
COVID-19/diagnosis
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Smell
Systematic Reviews as Topic

Access to Document

10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002

1-s2.0-S104727972300087X-mainFinal published version, 3.26 MBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Cite this

@article{b93a39feb1ce400db7d98bab4f9ceb75,

title = "Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review",

abstract = "PURPOSE: To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.METHODS: Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81\%-97\% sensitivity and 91\%-100\% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82\%-97\% sensitivity and 83\%-100\% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.",

keywords = "Animals, Dogs, Humans, COVID-19/diagnosis, SARS-CoV-2, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smell, Systematic Reviews as Topic",

author = "Sebastian Meller and Charles Caraguel and Friederike Twele and Marios Charalambous and Clara Schoneberg and Anne-Lise Chaber and Lo{\"i}c Desquilbet and Dominique Grandjean and Mardones, \{Fernando O\} and Lothar Kreienbrock and \{de la Rocque\}, St{\'e}phane and Volk, \{Holger A\}",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2023",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002",

language = "English",

volume = "85",

pages = "68--85",

journal = "Annals of Epidemiology",

issn = "1047-2797",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

AU - Meller, Sebastian

AU - Caraguel, Charles

AU - Twele, Friederike

AU - Charalambous, Marios

AU - Schoneberg, Clara

AU - Chaber, Anne-Lise

AU - Desquilbet, Loïc

AU - Grandjean, Dominique

AU - Mardones, Fernando O

AU - Kreienbrock, Lothar

AU - de la Rocque, Stéphane

AU - Volk, Holger A

PY - 2023/9

Y1 - 2023/9

N2 - PURPOSE: To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.METHODS: Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

AB - PURPOSE: To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.METHODS: Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

KW - Animals

KW - Dogs

KW - Humans

KW - COVID-19/diagnosis

KW - SARS-CoV-2

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Smell

KW - Systematic Reviews as Topic

U2 - 10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002

M3 - Review article

C2 - 37209927

SN - 1047-2797

VL - 85

SP - 68

EP - 85

JO - Annals of Epidemiology

JF - Annals of Epidemiology

ER -

Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

Abstract

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this