ContextMolecular tests are useful in detecting COVID-19, but they are expensive in developing countries. COVID-19-sniffing dogs are an alternative due to their reported sensitivity (>80%) and specificity (>90%). However, most of the published evidence is experimental, and there is a need to determine the performance of the dogs in field conditions. Hence, we aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19-sniffing dogs in the field.MethodsWe trained four dogs with sweat and three dogs with saliva of COVID-19-positive patients, respectively, for 4.5 months. The samples were obtained from a health center in Hermosillo, Sonora, with the restriction to spend 5 min per patient. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsTwo sweat-sniffing dogs reached 76 and 80% sensitivity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the random value of 50%, and 75 and 88% specificity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the 50% value. The 95% CI of the sensitivity and specificity of the other two sweat dogs overlapped the 50% value. Two saliva-sniffing dogs had 70 and 78% sensitivity, and the 95% CI of their sensitivity and specificity did not overlap the 50% value. The 95% CI of the third dog's sensitivity and specificity overlapped the 50% value.ConclusionFour of the six dogs were able to detect positive samples of patients with COVID-19, with sensitivity and specificity values significantly different from random in the field. We considered the performance of the dogs promising because it is reasonable to expect that with gauze exposed for a longer time to sweat and saliva of people with COVID-19, their detection capacity would improve. The target is to reach the sensitivity range requested by the World Health Organization for the performance of an antigen test (≥80% sensitivity, ≥97% specificity). If so, dogs could become important allies for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in developing countries.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Review question / Objective: Review question: Does chitosan base nanofibers has significant wound healing therapeutics effects in animal models? A preclinical systematic review of intervention will be carried out to evaluate the therapeutic effects of chitosan nanofibers on animal skin lesions. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) scheme will be used: Intervention: full-thickness skin lesions, and the application of chitosan nanofibers as treatment for animal skin lesions. Regardless of the concentration of chitosan or other added compounds used. Comparison: No intervention, topical placebo agents and standard skin lesions treatments will be included. Outcome: wound healing area, wound closure, type of wound closure (first, second or third intention), healing time, infectious processes (antibacterial/antifungal properties), blood loss (hemostatic properties) and adverse effects.