ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2025
Comparison of Different Sampling Methods on Viscoelastic Test Results Using a Point-of-Care Coagulation Monitor in Healthy Dogs.
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsStudies investigating the influence of sampling methods on point-of-care viscoelastic test (VCM Vet) results are limited.
objectivesInvestigating the impact of blood sampling methods on VCM Vet results in dogs, and determining if results are affected by hematological parameters, and blood sampling difficulty.
methodsTwo VCM assays were performed on 52 healthy dogs. Blood sample was first collected from a direct jugular venipuncture on all dogs to run a baseline VCM Vet assay, perform a CBC, and measure fibrinogen concentration. A second VCM Vet assay was performed one hour later with blood sampling methods randomized as follows: contralateral jugular using a vacutainer, direct stick in a saphenous vein, or blood sampling via a cephalic intravenous catheter.
resultsReference intervals were established for each VCM Vet parameter with the first blood sample. The intra-class correlation (ICC) between sampling methods was poor (< 0.5). There was a weak positive correlation between hematocrit and CT (p < 0.042), a weak negative correlation between platelet count and CFT (p < 0.01), and a weak positive correlation between platelet count and alpha (p = 0.002), A10 (p < 0.001), A20 (p < 0.001), and MCF (p < 0.001).
conclusionsSampling protocols influence VCM Vet results. Each sampling method is reliable but not correlated. Follow-up on a patient should be performed using the same sampling method and site. CBC results should be known before interpreting results.
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.