Randolph M. Baral, Susan M. Jaensch, Douglas A. Hayward, Kathleen P. Freeman
{"title":"Analytical performance of feline plasma on current Heska and IDEXX point-of-care biochemistry analyzers compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer","authors":"Randolph M. Baral, Susan M. Jaensch, Douglas A. Hayward, Kathleen P. Freeman","doi":"10.1111/vcp.13310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Point-of-care (POC) biochemistry analyzers are widely used in small animal clinical practice but infrequently independently assessed for performance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the performance of two current model point-of-care biochemistry analyzers (Heska Element DC and IDEXX Catalyst) compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer (Cobas 8000).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred twenty-one cats from a feline hospital population were sampled with plasma results from a single lithium heparin tube assessed on all three analyzers. Plasma biochemistry results from each POC analyzer were compared with the commercial laboratory analyzer using Bland–Altman difference plots and by determining whether the limits of agreement (LOAs) (95% of differences) fell within various quality goals after correcting for inherent bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Only 7 of 14 analytes on the Heska analyzer and 2 analytes on the IDEXX analyzer attained the most stringent LOA quality goal, which was being within desirable total error based on biologic variation (TE<sub>des</sub>). The number of analytes achieving quality goals increased with less stringent standards such as American Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathologists allowable total error (ASVCP TE<sub>A</sub>) guidelines or if <95% of clinical comparisons reaching these quality goals is considered acceptable. Widespread bias was found between both POC analyzers and the commercial laboratory analyzer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The performance of both POC biochemistry analyzers was variable compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer. Performance goals were only able to be attained after the bias for each analyzer was accounted for by offsetting the LOAs and quality goals set by the mean bias for each analyte on each analyzer.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":23593,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary clinical pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/vcp.13310","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vcp.13310","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Point-of-care (POC) biochemistry analyzers are widely used in small animal clinical practice but infrequently independently assessed for performance.
Objective
To assess the performance of two current model point-of-care biochemistry analyzers (Heska Element DC and IDEXX Catalyst) compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer (Cobas 8000).
Methods
One hundred twenty-one cats from a feline hospital population were sampled with plasma results from a single lithium heparin tube assessed on all three analyzers. Plasma biochemistry results from each POC analyzer were compared with the commercial laboratory analyzer using Bland–Altman difference plots and by determining whether the limits of agreement (LOAs) (95% of differences) fell within various quality goals after correcting for inherent bias.
Results
Only 7 of 14 analytes on the Heska analyzer and 2 analytes on the IDEXX analyzer attained the most stringent LOA quality goal, which was being within desirable total error based on biologic variation (TEdes). The number of analytes achieving quality goals increased with less stringent standards such as American Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathologists allowable total error (ASVCP TEA) guidelines or if <95% of clinical comparisons reaching these quality goals is considered acceptable. Widespread bias was found between both POC analyzers and the commercial laboratory analyzer.
Conclusions
The performance of both POC biochemistry analyzers was variable compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer. Performance goals were only able to be attained after the bias for each analyzer was accounted for by offsetting the LOAs and quality goals set by the mean bias for each analyte on each analyzer.
期刊介绍:
Veterinary Clinical Pathology is the official journal of the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) and the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ESVCP). The journal''s mission is to provide an international forum for communication and discussion of scientific investigations and new developments that advance the art and science of laboratory diagnosis in animals. Veterinary Clinical Pathology welcomes original experimental research and clinical contributions involving domestic, laboratory, avian, and wildlife species in the areas of hematology, hemostasis, immunopathology, clinical chemistry, cytopathology, surgical pathology, toxicology, endocrinology, laboratory and analytical techniques, instrumentation, quality assurance, and clinical pathology education.