Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33518128›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2021

Comparison of portable and conventional laboratory analyzers for biochemical tests in chickens.

Fernando Ruiz-Jimenez, Erika Gruber, Maria Correa, Rocio Crespo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. DietaryHeliyon · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fernando Ruiz-JimenezDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA. Electronic address: fruizji@ncsu.edu.
Erika GruberDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
Maria CorreaDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
Rocio CrespoDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
North Carolina State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antemortem blood biochemical and blood gas analyses are routinely used in health screening and diagnosis of disease in domestic veterinary species. These testing modalities are not routinely performed in poultry, in part, due to the distance from the diagnostic laboratory. Portable blood analyzers such as the i-STAT and VetScan (VS2) can be used to obtain results on the farm without delay, potentially offering a more practical option for poultry practitioners. We investigated the time effect on blood chemistry values and compared the results obtained using the i-STAT and VS2 with those obtained using conventional laboratory analyzers (GEM Premier 3000 and Cobas c501, respectively). We tested blood from 60 healthy chickens. Each sample was tested in triplicate using each of the portable analyzers and once using conventional analyzers. All samples were analyzed within 60 minutes of collection. The concentrations of some analytes were outside the limit of detection of the portable analyzers (i.e., bile acids). Although statistically significant differences were found for some biochemical analytes over time, the actual mean or median differences were too small to be considered of clinical importance. As observed in mammals, significant time-dependent changes in blood gas analytes were observed in whole blood samples exposed to ambient air. Correlation coefficients between portable and conventional analyzers were moderate to high for most of the analytes. For the most part, there was an agreement between the portable and conventional analyzers. We identified constant and proportional biases in the measurement of multiple analytes by both the i-STAT and VS2. Future studies are warranted to establish analyzer-specific reference intervals for poultry.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood Chemical AnalysisBlood Gas AnalysisChickensHematologic TestsLaboratoriesPoint-of-Care TestingReference ValuesTime Factorsanalyzerbiochemical analysisbroilerconventionalportable

Identifiers

PMID33518128
PMCPMC7858187
OpenAlexW3107062796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.