ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2021
Comparison of IDEXX SediVue Dx
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Clinical Pathology-An Introduction and Review.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2025Review
- Changes in the composition of urine over six hours using urine dipstick analysis and automated microscopy.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Anvajo Vet Fluidlab 1 urine sediment analyzer to manual microscopy and Idexx SediVue analysis for analysis of urine samples from cats and dogs.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2022Article
- Comparison of IDEXX SediVue DxJournal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDetection of urinary casts is difficult due to their intermittent presence and deterioration in urine samples.
objectiveTo compare the performance of the IDEXX SediVue Dx ANIMALS: Four hundred forty-three samples from 420 dogs from a hospital population.
methodsThis is a prospective, cross-sectional study. For SediVue analysis (software version [SW] 1.0.1.3), uncentrifuged urine was pipetted into a disposable cartridge. Seventy images were captured and processed by an onboard algorithm. For manual microscopy, urine was centrifuged to obtain sediment. Any cast identified by either method was considered a positive result (>0/low-power field [LPF]). SediVue images were evaluated if casts were detected by either methodology. A revised sensitivity and specificity were calculated after image review and when using a threshold of >1 cast/LPF.
resultsThe sensitivity of the SediVue analysis for the detection of urinary casts was 53.7% (43.85%-63.35%), and specificity was 86.0% (81.78%-89.51%). After image review, the revised sensitivity/specificity was 52.0% (42.89%-61.02%) and 90.6% (86.81%-93.54%), respectively. When using a more clinically relevant threshold of >1/LPF, the sensitivity was 52.6% (35.82%-69.02%) and specificity was 99.3% (97.85%-99.85%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The SediVue provides moderate agreement to manual methodology for detection of casts in urine.
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.