ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Determination of canine ROTEM Sigma reference ranges and comparative analysis with ROTEM Delta.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hemostatic dysfunctions are frequent in critically ill dogs and can markedly affect clinical outcomes. Conventional plasma-based coagulation testing provides limited insight into the complex Objective: To determine the reference intervals for ROTEM Sigma parameters in healthy dogs, to compare these values with published ROTEM Delta data, and to assess the influence of physiological variables such as age, sex, body weight, and neuter status. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in 42 clinically healthy dogs. Whole blood samples were analyzed using ROTEM Sigma EXTEM, INTEM, FIBTEM, and HEPTEM assays. Reference intervals were generated using both conventional parametric and robust median-MAD statistical methods. Comparisons were made with previously reported canine ROTEM Delta data. Multivariate regression explored associations between ROTEM parameters and demographic or hematologic variables. Results: Reference intervals were successfully defined for all ROTEM Sigma parameters (CT, CFT, A10, MCF, LI60, and G). EXTEM values agreed most closely with previously published ROTEM Delta data, whereas INTEM and FIBTEM exhibited greater variability. Regression analysis identified maximum clot firmness (MCF) as the only parameter significantly affected by biological variables. MCF decreased with higher body weight, increased with platelet count and showed minor sex-related differences. Conclusion: This study establishes canine-specific ROTEM Sigma reference intervals. The close concordance with Delta data more (particularly EXTEM) suggests cross platform consistency while highlighting the necessity of dedicated Sigma-specific reference ranges. Body weight, sex, and platelet count were the primary determinants of MCF. These validated reference intervals enhance the clinical applicability of ROTEM Sigma for assessing hemostatic function in dogs.
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.