Randolph M. Baral, Susan M. Jaensch, Douglas A. Hayward, Kathleen P. Freeman
{"title":"当前 Heska 和 IDEXX 床旁生化分析仪与商用实验室分析仪对猫科动物血浆分析性能的比较。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:护理点(POC)生化分析仪广泛应用于小动物临床实践,但很少对其性能进行独立评估:评估两种现有型号的床旁生化分析仪(Heska Element DC 和 IDEXX Catalyst)与商用实验室分析仪(Cobas 8000)的性能比较:方法:从猫科动物医院的 121 只猫中采样,用所有三种分析仪评估来自单支锂肝素管的血浆结果。使用布兰-阿尔特曼(Bland-Altman)差异图将每种 POC 分析仪的血浆生化结果与商业实验室分析仪的结果进行比较,并在校正固有偏差后确定一致性限(LOAs)(差异的 95%)是否在各种质量目标范围内:结果:在Heska分析仪的14种分析物中,只有7种分析物达到了最严格的LOA质量目标,即基于生物变异的理想总误差(TEdes)。如果采用美国兽医临床病理学家协会允许总误差(ASVCP TEA)准则或结论等不太严格的标准,达到质量目标的分析物数量会增加:与商用实验室分析仪相比,两种 POC 生化分析仪的性能参差不齐。只有通过用每台分析仪上每种分析物的平均偏差来抵消 LOAs 和质量目标,并对每台分析仪的偏差进行核算后,才能实现性能目标。
Analytical performance of feline plasma on current Heska and IDEXX point-of-care biochemistry analyzers compared with a commercial laboratory analyzer
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.