ArticleVeterinary sciences2022
Comparison of Analytical Values after Changing to the International Standardized Method for Lactate Dehydrogenase and Alkaline Phosphatase Measurements in Mouse and Rat.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- An update on hematologic, biochemical and urinary reference values for Iriomote cats.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2025Article
- Harmonization of Lipoprotein(a) Immunoassays Using A Serum Panel Value Assigned with The IFCC-Endorsed Mass Spectrometry-Based Reference Measurement Procedure as A First Step Towards Apolipoprotein Standardization.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of serum alkaline phosphatase levels between two measurement methods in chronic hemodialysis patients in Japan: involvement of ABO blood group system and relationship with mortality risk.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since April 2020, the method for lactate dehydrogenase (LD) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity measurements in Japan has been switched from the Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC) reference method, which is only used in Japan, to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference method. However, in some species, the relationship between the blood values of both enzymes measured by the two methods remains unclear. Hence, values measured by these two methods cannot be used interchangeably. Therefore, this relationship was examined in ICR mice and Wistar/ST rats. The LD and ALP values obtained by both methods were plotted on scatter graphs, and regression equations were obtained. To compare the JSCC (x) and IFCC (y) methods, regression equations were generated for LD values in non-hemolytic samples as follows: y = 0.954x - 4.008 for ICR mice and y = 0.963x - 6.324 for Wistar/ST rats. The conversion factors from the JSCC to the IFCC methods were 0.954 (mice) and 0.963 (rats). The conversion coefficients from the IFCC to the JSCC methods were 1.048 (mice) and 1.088 (rats). For ALP values in fasted mouse and rat samples, the regression equations were y = 0.336x - 2.247 and y = 0.314x - 17.626, respectively. The conversion factors from the JSCC to the IFCC methods were 0.336 (mice) and 0.314 (rats). The conversion coefficients from the IFCC to the JSCC methods were 2.978 (mice) and 3.188 (rats). These conversion factors can be used for the mutual conversion of both measured values during the transition period from the JSCC to the IFCC method. However, it should be noted that the conversion coefficients for both LD and ALP were affected by isozyme composition.
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.