ArticleJournal of exotic pet medicine2023
Comparison of two point of care lactate instruments in guinea pigs (
Article in Journal of exotic pet medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational Analysis of Point-of-Care Lactate Plus™ Meter in Preclinical Trauma Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lactate measurements have been utilized as diagnostic and prognostic tools for a variety of veterinary species. Reference intervals for lactate have not been published or validated in guinea pigs. Methods: Whole blood from 48 anesthetized laboratory guinea pigs (46 Dunkin Hartley [38 males, eight females]; two Strain 13 [two males]) was analyzed using two point of care instruments (iSTAT and Lactate Plus). There were two consecutive timepoints on the iSTAT (iSTAT time 1 and time 2) and three consecutive timepoints on the Lactate Plus (Lactate Plus time 1, time 2, and time 3). Results: There was agreement with no constant or proportional bias between the two instruments compared at equivalent timepoints (iSTAT time 1 and Lactate Plus time 3) as determined by Bland-Altman (bias: -0.19; 95% LoA: -0.55 to 0.16) and Deming linear regression analyses (slope: 1.092, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.9 to 1.29; y-intercept: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.30). Reference intervals for iSTAT time 1 were 0.49 to 1.83 mmol/L and Lactate Plus time 1 were 0.60 to. 2.2 mmol/L. There was a significant increase in lactate values from iSTAT time 1 to iSTAT time 2 and from Lactate Plus time 1 to Lactate Plus time 3. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: This study found strong agreement between the point of care instruments. Reference intervals for lactate for both the iSTAT and Lactate Plus instruments were similar to canine and feline intervals. Analysis should occur within 5 minutes of sample collection. Future work should assess lactate as a prognostic indicator in guinea pigs.
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.