ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2022
Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum).
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of growth-promoting implants and revaccination timing on stress physiology and growth performance in male beef calves.Translational animal science · 2026Article
- Luteal phase decrease in packed cell volume in healthy non-pregnant and pregnant bitches.Veterinary medicine and science · 2023Article
- Biological Variation and Reference Change Value of Routine Hematology Measurands in a Population of Managed Bottlenose Dolphins (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum).Veterinary clinical pathology · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHematocrit (HCT) determination is an integral part of health and disease assessments in captive and wild white rhinoceroses. Several affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in-clinic and field use and have the advantage of being able to measure a large number of additional measurands. However, the accuracy of these analyzers for rhinoceros HCT measurements has not yet been investigated.
objectivesWe aimed to compare the HCT results generated by the EPOC portable analyzer system and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 with the gold standard of a manual packed cell volume (PCV) measured using the microhematocrit method.
methodsHematocrits were measured with the EPOC and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 (bovine setting) and compared with the PCVs of 69 white rhinoceros whole blood samples. Results were compared using Bland-Altman difference plots and Passing-Bablok regression analysis. A total allowable analytical error of 10% was set as the performance goal.
resultsA significant positive bias, with a mean of 7.7% for the EPOC and 17.9% for the Abaxis, was found compared with the manual PCV method.
conclusionsThe allowable error goal of 10% was not exceeded with the EPOC analyzer. Although not analytically equivalent to the gold standard, the EPOC results could therefore be used as approximations in critical situations where manual measurements cannot be performed. The Abaxis exceeded this allowable error and overestimated HCTs in rhinoceroses. Therefore, method-specific reference intervals should be 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.