ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2018
Diagnostic performances of manual and automated reticulocyte parameters in anaemic cats.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regenerative anemia identification in cats: Red blood cell indices or morphology, what to use?Veterinary world · 2024Article
- Feline non-regenerative anemia: Diagnostic and treatment recommendations.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performances of manual and instrumental measurement of reticulocyte percentage (Ret%), reticulocyte number (Ret#) and reticulocyte production index (RPI) to differentiate regenerative anaemia (RA) from non-regenerative anaemia (NRA) in cats. Methods Data from 106 blood samples from anaemic cats with manual counts (n = 74; 68 NRA, six RA) or instrumental counts of reticulocytes (n = 32; 25 NRA, seven RA) collected between 1995 and 2013 were retrospectively analysed. Sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) were calculated using either cut-offs reported in the literature or cut-offs determined from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results All the reticulocyte parameters were significantly higher in cats with RA than in cats with NRA. All the ROC curves were significantly different ( P <0.001) from the line of no discrimination, without significant differences between the three parameters. Using the cut-offs published in literature, the Ret% (cut-off: 0.5%) was sensitive (100%) but not specific (<75%), the RPI (cut-off: 1.0) was specific (>92%) but not sensitive (<15%), and the Ret# (cut-off: 50 × 10³/µl) had a sensitivity and specificity >80% and the highest LR+ (manual count: 14; instrumental count: 6). For all the parameters, sensitivity and specificity approached 100% using the cut-offs determined by the ROC curves. These cut-offs were higher than those reported in the literature for Ret% (manual: 1.70%; instrumental: 3.06%), lower for RPI (manual: 0.39; instrumental: 0.59) and variably different, depending on the method (manual: 41 × 10³/µl; instrumental: 57 × 10³/µl), for Ret#. Using these cut-offs, the RPI had the highest LR+ (manual: 22.7; instrumental: 12.5). Conclusions and relevance This study indicated that all the reticulocyte parameters may confirm regeneration when the pretest probability is high, while when this probability is moderate, RA should be identified using the RPI providing that cut-offs <1.0 are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.