ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Comparison of Citrated Whole Blood to Native Whole Blood for Coagulation Testing Using the Viscoelastic Coagulation Monitor (VCM Vet™) in Horses.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Viscoelastic monitoring of horse coagulation is increasing due to its advantages over traditional coagulation testing. The use of a point-of-care viscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM Vet™) has been validated for use in horses using native whole blood (NWB) but has not been assessed using citrated whole blood (CWB), a technique that might have advantages in practicality and precision. Blood was collected from 70 horses, tested in duplicate immediately using NWB (T0), and stored at room temperature as CWB for testing in duplicate at 1 (T1) and 4 (T4) hours after venipuncture for comparison to NWB. Of these horses, 20 were classified as clinically healthy and used to determine reference intervals for CWB at 1 and 4 h post-collection. There were clinically relevant differences in all measured viscoelastic parameters of CWB compared to NWB meaning that they cannot be used interchangeably. These differences were not consistent at T1 and T4 meaning the resting time of CWB influences the results and should be kept consistent. The use of CWB in this study also resulted in more machine errors when compared to NWB resulting in measurements that might not be interpretable.
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.