Author-name correction issued for canine salivary cortisol study
Bottom line
A correction notice has been published for the 2025 BMC Veterinary Research study evaluating in-hospital and at-home salivary sampling in healthy dogs and trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome. The change is administrative rather than scientific: the notice corrects the spelling of the corresponding author’s name, with no indication that the study’s data, methods, results, or conclusions were altered. The original prospective observational study, published October 23, 2025, examined whether salivary cortisol sampling, especially at home, could offer a less stressful alternative to in-hospital monitoring for dogs receiving trilostane. (link.springer.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this correction doesn’t change the clinical takeaways from the underlying paper. Those remain fairly cautious: saliva collection worked reliably in healthy controls, but was much harder in client-owned dogs with Cushing’s syndrome, with in-hospital sampling successful in 18 of 38 dogs and at-home sampling successful in just 7 of those 18. Among the small number of dogs successfully sampled at both locations, at-home salivary cortisol was significantly lower than in-hospital values, suggesting hospital-associated stress may affect monitoring results, but the authors also concluded that current sampling challenges limit immediate clinical use. (link.springer.com)
What to watch: Watch for whether the group or others publish follow-up work with improved collection methods that make at-home salivary cortisol monitoring more practical in general practice. (link.springer.com)
Key facts
- Article type
- Correction notice
- Original study
- Prospective observational study
- Journal
- BMC Veterinary Research
- Publication date
- October 23, 2025
- Correction
- Spelling of the corresponding author’s name
- Study population
- 10 healthy controls and 38 trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome
- Sampling method
- Ginger-dipped Salimetrics swab
- In-hospital sampling success
- 18 of 38 dogs with Cushing’s syndrome
- At-home sampling success
- 7 of 18 dogs
A correction has been issued for a prospective observational study on salivary cortisol monitoring in healthy dogs and trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome, but the update is narrow: it fixes the spelling of the corresponding author’s name rather than revising the science itself. The original paper appeared in BMC Veterinary Research on October 23, 2025, and explored whether at-home salivary sampling could reduce the confounding effects of in-hospital stress during monitoring. (link.springer.com)
That underlying study addressed a familiar problem in canine hypercortisolism management. Monitoring dogs treated with trilostane remains difficult, and clinicians often have to balance clinical signs with laboratory data that can be influenced by timing, stress, and assay choice. The Zurich group framed salivary cortisol as a potentially less invasive, lower-stress alternative, building on earlier work in healthy dogs and on the broader idea, well established in human medicine, that home sampling may better reflect baseline cortisol status. (link.springer.com)
In the original trial, investigators enrolled 10 healthy controls and 38 trilostane-treated dogs with Cushing’s syndrome. Saliva was collected using a ginger-dipped Salimetrics swab, while serum cortisol was measured alongside salivary cortisol for comparison. The practical barrier was obvious: saliva sampling succeeded in all healthy controls, but only 47% of dogs with Cushing’s syndrome were successfully sampled in hospital, and only 7 of those 18 dogs yielded usable at-home samples. Owners also reported difficulty retrieving the samples. (link.springer.com)
Among the limited number of dogs sampled successfully in both settings, salivary cortisol was significantly lower at home than in hospital. The uncontrolled dog in that subset had the highest at-home salivary cortisol concentration, while several clinically well-controlled dogs had prepill serum cortisol values above the target range but very low or undetectable at-home salivary cortisol. The authors said those findings highlight both the possible effect of hospital stress on conventional monitoring and the risk of overinterpreting in-hospital cortisol results in otherwise stable patients. (link.springer.com)
No outside expert commentary tied specifically to the correction was readily available in the sources reviewed. But the paper’s own discussion was measured: the authors said the current challenges in obtaining adequate saliva samples limit the practical applicability of the method as an alternative to serum prepill cortisol measurement, even if the concept remains promising. They suggested that different collection materials or more palatable sampling aids could improve feasibility in future studies. (link.springer.com)
Why it matters: For practicing veterinarians, the correction itself is minor, but the study it points back to is more clinically relevant than the notice. It adds to the ongoing discussion about how best to monitor trilostane-treated dogs when clinic-based cortisol values don’t match the dog in front of you. The data support a familiar caution: numbers collected in a stressful hospital environment may not always align with clinical control, and pet parent-reported signs still matter. At the same time, the low success rate for at-home saliva collection means this is not yet a plug-and-play monitoring tool for routine practice. (link.springer.com)
The study also underscores a broader point about assay development in endocrinology: a biologically appealing approach can still fail on workflow. Even though salivary cortisol may better reflect less-stressed conditions, a test that many dogs resist and many pet parents struggle to collect won’t be easy to scale into primary care or specialty follow-up without better sampling technology and clearer protocols. That’s especially relevant for practices looking for lower-stress monitoring options that are realistic outside a research setting. (link.springer.com)
What to watch: The next step is likely not a change in interpretation of this paper, but whether follow-on studies can improve sample collection success enough to test salivary cortisol monitoring in larger, more practice-ready cohorts of dogs with Cushing’s syndrome. (link.springer.com)