Key result
Shoe bootie sampling matches direct oral swabs for detecting FMDV before clinical signs appear.
Why the study?
Direct sampling of suspected animals faces limited veterinary capacity during foot and mouth disease outbreaks, necessitating the evaluation of environmental sampling methods.
Does environmental sampling using shoe booties detect FMDV in animal pens similarly to direct animal sampling?
Population
Experimentally infected cattle and swine
Comparison
Environmental sampling methods vs direct animal sampling
Design
Experimental comparative study
Authors
Loading...
Environmental sampling with shoe booties may enable pre-clinical FMDV detection; leaves open validation for outbreak-scale use.
Does environmental sampling using shoe booties detect FMDV in animal pens similarly to direct animal sampling?
Environmental sampling using shoe booties provides a viable, scalable alternative to direct animal sampling for early detection of foot and mouth disease virus in animal pens.
Hodge et al. (2026) studied Foot and mouth disease (FMD). Environmental sampling methods (shoe booties, ropes, and environmental swabs) vs. Direct animal sampling (oral swabs) was evaluated on Detection of FMDV by RT-qPCR, nanopore sequencing, and LAMP-based point-of-care test. Environmental sampling methods using shoe booties were sufficient to identify foot and mouth disease virus in animal pens prior to the onset of clinical signs, similarly to direct oral swabs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: