Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37999454›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2023

Evaluation of a Manual Cytocentrifuge versus the Standard Automated Cytocentrifuge in the Analysis of Canine Cerebrospinal Fluid: A Case Series of 55 Dogs.

Luísa Fonte-Oliveira, André Pereira, Hugo Gregório, João Ribeiro, Carla Correia-Gomes, Ricardo Marcos, Marta Santos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 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
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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, 1 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Luísa Fonte-OliveiraCytology and Hematology Diagnostic Services, Laboratory of Histology and Embryology, Department of Microscopy, ICBAS-UP, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
André PereiraAniCura CHV Porto Hospital Veterinário, 4100-320 Porto, Portugal.
Hugo GregórioAniCura CHV Porto Hospital Veterinário, 4100-320 Porto, Portugal.
João RibeiroReferência Veterinária, 2645-550 Alcabideche, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2472-2895
Carla Correia-GomesAnimal Health Ireland, Carrick on Shannon Co., N41 WN27 Leitrim, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2909-4608
Ricardo MarcosCytology and Hematology Diagnostic Services, Laboratory of Histology and Embryology, Department of Microscopy, ICBAS-UP, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5502-5991
Marta SantosCytology and Hematology Diagnostic Services, Laboratory of Histology and Embryology, Department of Microscopy, ICBAS-UP, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1350-4254
Universidade do Porto · PTCUF Porto Hospital · PTAnimal Health Ireland · IEUniversidade Lusófona · PT

Funding

AniCura Research Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cytospins are important for evaluating fluids with very low cellularity such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The aim of this study was to compare the CSF cytospin preparations obtained from automated and manual cytocentrifugation methods. A prospective case series was performed to analyze canine CSF samples using both centrifugation methods. The cytospins were processed within 30-60 min and prepared simultaneously in a conventional automated cytocentrifuge and in an in-house manual cytocentrifuge, using a fixed volume of CSF fluid. The cellularity, differential cell count and the proportion of cell artifacts (pseudopods and vacuolization) were blindly assessed in the cytospin preparations obtained using the two methods. The agreement and correlation between both methods were analyzed. There were 55 dogs enrolled (48 prospectively and 7 retrospectively) in the study. 38 dogs had normal total nucleated cell counts, while 17 had pleocytosis. Automated and manual cytocentrifugation had similar cell yields, and no significant differences in differential cell counts or the presence of artifacts existed between both methods. In cases with pleocytosis, the cytologic diagnosis obtained using each method was similar. Manual cytocentrifugation of CSF is a reliable and economic method designed for routine clinical practice. Its use reduces the specimen deterioration related to processing and analysis delays when samples are transported to external laboratories for evaluation.

Indexed as

cerebrospinal fluidcytologycytospinsdogmanual cytocentrifugationpleocytosis

Identifiers

PMID37999454
PMCPMC10674567
OpenAlexW4387902067

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.