Comparison of Enterprise Point‐of‐Care and Nova Biomedical Critical Care Xpress analyzers for determination of arterial pH, blood gas, and electrolyte values in canine and equine blood
Point-of-care analyzers can provide a rapid turnaround time for critical blood test results. Agreement between the Enterprise Point-of-Care (EPOC) and bench-top laboratory analyzers is important to determine the clinical reliability of the EPOC.
The aim of the study was (1) to evaluate the precision (repeatability) of blood gas values measured by the EPOC and (2) to determine the level of agreement between the EPOC and Nova Critical Care Express (Nova CCX) for the assessment of arterial pH, blood gases, and electrolyte variables in canine and equine blood.
Arterial blood samples from dogs were analyzed on the EPOC and Nova CCX analyzers to determine precision and agreement of pH, PaCO2 , PaO2 , and HCT. The same analytes plus Na+ , K- , and Cl- were analyzed for agreement using equine blood. Statistical analyses included assessment of precision using the coefficient of variation (CV%), and agreement using the Deming regression, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman plots.
Both analyzers provided precise results of pH, PaCO2 , PaO2, and HCT, meeting CV% quality requirement values. In both species, Deming regression results were acceptable and correlation values were above 0.93 for arterial pH and blood gases, but lower for sodium and chloride. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated varying degrees of bias, but good agreement between the 2 analyzers was seen when arterial blood gases and electrolytes were measured, except for PaCO2 and Cl-. CONCLUSION: The EPOC analyzer provides consistent, reliable results for canine arterial blood gas values and for equine arterial blood gas and electrolyte values. Cl- results could be acceptable with the application of a correction factor, but the PaCO2 results were more variable.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#21,921,572
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#478
of 815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,561
of 331,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 815 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
