dc.creatorMeller, Sebastián
dc.creatorCaraguel, Charles
dc.creatorTwele, Friederike
dc.creatorCharalambous, Marios
dc.creatorSchoneberg, Clara
dc.creatorChaber, Anne-Lise
dc.creatorDesquilbet, Loïc
dc.creatorGrandjean, Dominique
dc.creatorMardones, Fernando O.
dc.creatorKreienbrock, Lothar de la Rocque
dc.creatorde la Rocque, Stéphane
dc.creatorVolk, Holger
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-26T14:47:47Z
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-02T19:33:16Z
dc.date.available2024-01-26T14:47:47Z
dc.date.available2024-05-02T19:33:16Z
dc.date.created2024-01-26T14:47:47Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002
dc.identifier18732585 10472797
dc.identifierSCOPUS_ID:85165160323
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.05.002
dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/80982
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/9272693
dc.description.abstractTo 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.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.titleCanine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans—a systematic review
dc.typeartículo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución