ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2020
Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical Validation of an Automated Point-of-Care Immunoassay for the Measurement of Canine Pancreatic Lipase Immunoreactivity Concentration (Vcheck cPL 2.0).Veterinary clinical pathology · 2026Article
- Assessment of point-of-care quantitative serum canine pancreatic lipase testing for diagnosing acute pancreatitis in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Correlating two-dimensional shear wave elastography of acute pancreatitis with Spec cPL in dogs.Journal of veterinary science · 2022Article
- Advances in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Review
- ACVIM consensus statement on pancreatitis in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSensitivity and specificity for commercial and in-house pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (cPLI) assays have been reported, but repeatability under routine clinical conditions is unknown.
objectivesTo determine: Coefficient of variation (CV) between replicates of a commercial assay (Spec cPL) and 2 in-house assays (VetScan cPL, Vcheck cPL) under routine conditions. Effects of sample condition or personnel on results. Potential directional bias between assays. ANIMALS: Serum from 12 canine clinical patients.
methodsProspective study. Serum Spec cPL, VetScan cPL, and Vcheck cPL (6 aliquots each) were measured, and CVs were calculated, effects of sample condition and personnel were assessed using a linear mixed model, and direction of bias was assessed using least square mean cPLI concentration.
resultsMean %CVs for Spec cPL, VetScan cPL, and Vcheck cPL were 5.5, 17.0, and 23.7%. Three of 6 VetScan cPL samples and 5/9 Vcheck cPL samples had an unacceptably high %CV (>20%). Transportation (Spec cPL) and sample condition or personnel (VetScan cPL, Vcheck cPL) did not affect repeatability. Least square mean cPL was higher for Spec cPL (807.9 μg/L) than for VetScan cPL (558.5 μg/L) or Vcheck cPL (399.8 μg/L). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: For clinical use, the commercial Spec cPL has the highest repeatability, and Vcheck cPL has significantly lower repeatability. Both in-house assays evaluated may provide discrepant categorical results ("pancreatitis" versus "equivocal" versus "not pancreatitis") for the same sample. In-house pancreatic lipase concentrations may be lower than those determined by the Spec cPL assay.
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.