Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.

Sec. Animal Reproduction - Theriogenology

Comparative Ddiagnostic Eefficacy of Sswab Sstick and Ppipette methods for Vvaginal Ccytology techniques forin Ooestrous Ccycle Mmonitoring ofin West African Dwarf Goats

Provisionally accepted
Ugochinyere  NjogaUgochinyere Njoga1*Ugochi  M. NwaibeUgochi M. Nwaibe1Ibe  PatricIbe Patric1Chukwubuike  EmmanuelChukwubuike Emmanuel1Izuchukwu  S. OchioguIzuchukwu S. Ochiogu1John  IhediohaJohn Ihedioha1Kenneth  O. AnyaKenneth O. Anya1Emmanuel O.  NjogaEmmanuel O. Njoga2James  Wabwire OguttuJames Wabwire Oguttu2
  • 1University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nsukka, Nigeria
  • 2University of South Africa College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Pretoria, South Africa

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Accurate detection and monitoring of the oestrous cycle in West African Dwarf (WAD) goats is indispensable for reproductive management. Vaginal cytology is commonly used, but different collection methods may vary in diagnostic efficacy, smear quality, and animal safety. This study compared the diagnostic efficacy of pipette and swab stick methods for monitoring the oestrous cycle of WAD goats. Methods: Four cyclic WAD goats were sampled repeatedly for four consecutive days using both pipette and swab stick methods. A total of 16 samples were collected from each doe during the 4-day sampling period. Smears were evaluated for cell types (parabasal, intermediate, superficial), debris, and cellular distortion. Animal response to sampling was assessed via bleating and presence of blood cells to determine trauma. Economic and comprehensive diagnostic cost-effectiveness were also evaluated. Data were analysed using paired-sample t-test, Chi-square, and Fisher’s Exact Test where appropriate. Results: Swab stick smears yielded a higher proportion of superficial cells (9.41 ± 2.35) than pipette smears (4.04 ± 0.93, p = 0.03), while parabasal cells were higher in pipette smears (1.97 ± 0.43 vs 0.28 ± 0.08, p = 0.001). Heavy debris was observed more frequently in pipette smears (68.8%) than swab stick smears (25.0%, p = 0.032). No pipette smears exhibited cellular distortion, whereas swab stick smears showed mild to severe distortion (Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.007). Pipette sample collection caused greater trauma, indicated by prolonged bleating and moderate blood cell presence, compared with swab sampling. Although pipettes were more economical due to their lower cost and reusability, swab sticks demonstrated higher overall diagnostic cost-effectiveness when factors such as smear quality, trauma, and diagnostic yield were taken into account. Conclusion: Both methods are effective for monitoring the oestrous cycle in WAD goats; however, swab sticks offer higher diagnostic yield in detecting heat and lower trauma, whereas pipettes are more economical. Selection of method should balance cost, diagnostic performance, and animal welfare. Future studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to confirm these findings.

Keywords: debris, diagnostic cost-effectiveness, Oestrous cycle, Pipette method, Smear quality, swabstick method, vaginal cytology, West African dwarf goats

Received: 16 Dec 2025; Accepted: 11 Feb 2026.

Copyright: © 2026 Njoga, Nwaibe, Patric, Emmanuel, Ochiogu, Ihedioha, Anya, Njoga and Oguttu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Ugochinyere Njoga

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.