ArticleOpen veterinary journal2025
Agreement between a point-of-care analyzer and a reference laboratory analyzer for plasma phenobarbital quantification in dogs and cats.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate measurement of plasma phenobarbital concentration is essential to optimize seizure control while minimizing the risk of toxicity. Although both on-site point-of-care (POC) and off-site reference laboratory analyzers are commonly used in clinical practice, notable discrepancies between their results have been observed. Aim: The primary objective was to assess the agreement between an on-site POC analyzer (Catalyst One, IDEXX Laboratories) and an off-site reference laboratory analyzer (Cobas 6000 c501, Roche Diagnostics) for quantifying plasma phenobarbital concentrations in dogs and cats. A secondary objective was to investigate whether clinical or biological variables were associated with measurement discrepancies between the two analyzers. Methods: This dual-institutional retrospective study included dogs and cats with plasma phenobarbital concentrations measured concomitantly from the same blood sample, both on-site using a POC analyzer and off-site using a reference laboratory analyzer. Data were collected between September 2023 and December 2024. Agreement between analyzers was assessed using Passing-Bablok regression, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Associations between clinical or biological variables and measurement discrepancies were evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation and Student's Results: Thirty-three paired phenobarbital concentrations were measured using both analyzers. Passing-Bablok regression and Lin's CCC showed that the two analyzers were not equivalent (systematic proportional bias) and demonstrated poor agreement (CCC = 0.74). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean positive bias of +22.50 µmol/l ( Conclusion: This study suggests that caution should be exercised when using both analyzers interchangeably in clinical practice. In most cases from this study's population, the POC analyzer yielded higher phenobarbital concentrations. Clinicians should consider these discrepancies and interpret phenobarbital levels with caution, especially when switching analyzers during therapeutic drug monitoring. Further research is warranted to explore the causes of these differences and assess their clinical relevance in a broader population.
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.