Evaluation of an in-practice wet-chemistry analyzer using canine and feline serum samples. (January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Irvine, Katherine L.; Burt, Kay; Papasouliotis, Kostas
• Is Part Of: Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation. Volume 28:Number 1(2016:Jan.)
• Page Start: 38
• Page End: 45
• Publication Date: 2016-01
• Subjects: Cats -- dogs -- instrumentation -- point-of-care systems -- validation studies; Veterinary medicine -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 636.0896075
• DOI: 10.1177/1040638715618990
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-6387

Abstract

A wet-chemistry biochemical analyzer was assessed for in-practice veterinary use. Its small size may mean a cost-effective method for low-throughput in-house biochemical analyses for first-opinion practice. The objectives of our study were to determine imprecision, total observed error, and acceptability of the analyzer for measurement of common canine and feline serum analytes, and to compare clinical sample results to those from a commercial reference analyzer. Imprecision was determined by within- and between-run repeatability for canine and feline pooled samples, and manufacturer-supplied quality control material (QCM). Total observed error (TEobs ) was determined for pooled samples and QCM. Performance was assessed for canine and feline pooled samples by sigma metric determination. Agreement and errors between the in-practice and reference analyzers were determined for canine and feline clinical samples by Bland–Altman and Deming regression analyses. Within- and between-run precision was high for most analytes, and TEobs (%) was mostly lower than total allowable error. Performance based on sigma metrics was good (σ > 4) for many analytes and marginal (σ > 3) for most of the remainder. Correlation between the analyzers was very high for most canine analytes and high for most feline analytes. Between-analyzer bias was generally attributed to high constant error. The in-practice analyzer showed good overall performance, with only calcium and phosphate analyses identified as significantly problematic. Agreement for most analytes was insufficient for transposition of reference intervals, and we recommend that in-practice–specific reference intervals be established in the laboratory.