Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37808118›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Comparison of visual assessments of anisocytosis in canine blood smears and analyzer-calculated red blood cell distribution width.

Asger L Jensen, Anne K H Krogh, Lise N Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Asger L JensenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne K H KroghDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lise N NielsenDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) and visual assessments of anisocytosis assess variability in erythrocyte size. Veterinary studies on the correlation between the two methods and on observer agreement are scarce. The objectives were to assess the correlation of the grading of anisocytosis by means of conventional microscopy of canine blood smears to RDW, and to assess intra- and inter-observer variation in assessing the degree of anisocytosis. The study included 100 canine blood samples on which blood smear examination and RDW measurement were performed. RDW was measured on the Advia 2120i analyzer. The degree of anisocytosis was based on a human grading scheme assessing the ratio between the size of the representative largest red blood cell and that of the representative smallest red blood cell (1+ if <2x, 2+ if 2-3x, 3+ if 3-4x, and 4+ if >4x). Three observers participated and assessed the blood smears by conventional microscopy twice, 3 weeks apart by each observer. The correlation was assessed for each observer on each occasion using Kendahl-tau-b analysis. Intra-observer agreement was assessed using quadratically weighted kappa. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using free-marginal multi-rater kappa. Anisocytosis graded on blood smears correlated significantly with RDW values as assessed by Kendahl-tau-b ranging between 0.37 and 0.51 (

Indexed as

dogerythrocyte size variabilityhematologymicroscopyobserver variability

Identifiers

PMID37808118
PMCPMC10551143
OpenAlexW4386927218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.