ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2026
Evaluation of the difference between mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration and mean cellular haemoglobin concentration in canine complete blood count assessed with an automated haematology analyser.
Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed (a) to establish the reference interval for Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration in healthy dogs by ADVIA 2120 haematology analyser, (b) to identify the causes of increased Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration in both healthy and diseased canine samples and (c) to establish a cut-off value to prompt further diagnostic evaluations by practitioners. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was conducted evaluating the medical records of dogs referred to a Veterinary University Hospital. Healthy dogs were prospectively included to establish reference interval for complete blood count variables comprising Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration. Complete blood count reports of dogs who had both complete blood count and biochemistry performed concurrently were included. Complete blood counts were performed within 2 hours of sample collection, and biochemical analyses were carried out on serum samples within 12 hours. The macroscopic sample alterations were retrieved, including haemolysis, icterus, lipaemia and their severity.
resultsReference interval for Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration was established and ranged from -1.70 to 2.20 g/dL (90% confidence interval of the upper limit 1.92 to 2.50). The Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration was significantly increased in lipaemic and haemolytic samples and significantly correlated with their severity. The frequency of samples with increased Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration (≥2.5 g/dL) was significantly higher in lipaemic and haemolytic samples and in patients undergoing corticosteroid therapy or affected by Cushing's syndrome. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: An increase in Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration in dogs is often associated with macroscopic sample alterations, mainly due to lipaemia, haemolysis, or both. When a Δmean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration-mean cellular haemoglobin concentration value of >2.5 g/dL is noted, laboratories and practitioners should carefully evaluate the samples for any evidence of haemolysis or lipaemia.
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.