ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Evaluation of Point-of-Care Coagulation Measurement Systems for Activated Clotting Time and Partial Thromboplastin Time in Heparinized and Non-Heparinized Equine Blood.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). 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
objectivesTo compare the performance of one point-of-care activated clotting time (ACT) machine (Vet-Tube), one point-of-care activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) machine (Coagulation DX), and one bench-top ACT machine (Medtronic ACT II plus) with previously published measurements from stationary devices in whole blood from healthy horses.
designProspective, observational study
settingUniversity veterinary teaching hospital, from August 2023 to September 2023. ANIMALS: Thirty healthy university-owned horses.
methodsACT and aPTT were measured via point-of-care analyzers (ACT POC, aPTT POC) and by conventional stationary analyzers (ACT Stationary, aPTT Stationary) in non-heparinized and heparinized blood collected from healthy horses. Samples were analyzed within 30 min of collection.
resultsModerate correlation (r = 0.5), acceptable bias, and a low intraassay coefficient of variation (<5%) were seen for the ACT stationery device and ACT POC coagulation tubes. The ACT stationery and ACT POC showed no significant difference for both non-heparinized (n = 30, p = 0.64) and heparinized samples (n = 15, p = 0.43). Strong correlation but high bias and a high intraassay coefficient of variation (>5%) were seen for the aPTT POC device, with the aPTT stationary device being within previously published ranges. The aPTT stationary chemistry analyzer and aPTT POC showed a significant difference for non-heparinized samples (n = 30, p = 0.0002) but had no significant difference for heparinized samples (n = 15, p = 0.03). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide proof of concept for the use of low-cost POC monitoring of ACT in equine patients with coagulopathy or undergoing heparin therapy. Rigorous evaluation in patients with clinical disease is still necessary.
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.