Abstract
Current testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus), which causes the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection, is typically reliant upon collection of nasal swab samples from subjects. These tests (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] and antigen) are intrusive, can take significant time to process, and can give deleterious false negative and false positive results. Alternative methods for COVID-19 testing and screening are being studied, including the use of trained scent detection dogs to detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with the COVID virus. In August 2020 and October 2020, the first author (T.D.) searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and additional news articles using keyword phrases including "COVID scent dogs," "COVID sniffer dogs," and "COVID detection dog," returning a total of 13 articles, nine of which were duplicates. Four remaining peer-reviewed studies dedicated to determining the feasibility and efficacy of detecting and screening individuals who may be infected by the COVID-19 virus with scent detection dogs were then examined. In this narrative review, the authors describe the methodologies and results of the remaining four studies, which demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, and overall success rates reported by the summarized scent detection studies are comparable to or better than the standard RT-PCR and antigen testing procedures, meaning that scent detection dogs can likely be effectively employed to nonintrusively screen and identify individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus in hospitals, senior care facilities, schools, universities, airports, and even large public gatherings for sporting events and concerts.
Highlights
Current testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus), which causes the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection, is typically reliant upon collection of nasal swab samples from subjects
The authors describe the methodologies and results of the remaining four studies, which demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, and overall success rates reported by the summarized scent detection studies are comparable to or better than the standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) and antigen testing procedures, meaning that scent detection dogs can likely be effectively employed to nonintrusively screen and identify individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus in hospitals, senior care
Most ongoing diagnostic COVID-19 testing involves nasopharyngeal swabs collected by trained personnel for the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) to identify the pathogen. (Nasopharyngeal swab sampling may be replaced by less contagious methods such as skin swab sampling from the neck or underarm.) The sensitivity and accuracy of this testing methodology was discussed by Wiersinga et al.,[2] who summarized modeling results using RT-PCR as follows: “... the sensitivity of testing varies with timing of testing relative to exposure
Summary
Current testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus), which causes the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection, is typically reliant upon collection of nasal swab samples from subjects These tests (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] and antigen) are intrusive, can take significant time to process, and can give deleterious false negative and false positive results. That report indicated that “Spanish health authorities returned thousands of COVID-19 antigen tests to the Chinese firm Shengzhen Bioeasy Biotechnology after finding the tests correctly identified infected people only 30% of the time according to a report by the Spanish newspaper El Pais.”[1] there remains a need for alternative COVID-19 testing and screening methods that are non-intrusive, can provide rapid results, and can be performed randomly with a high degree of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for large numbers of individuals who may be at the earliest phase of exposure. One-third of a dog’s brain is dedicated to the interpretation of odors, compared to only 5% for humans.[4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
