ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2026
Evaluation of the IDEXX Procyte Dx Analyzer for the Measurement of Total and Differential Cellular Counts of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in Healthy Beagles and Dogs with Lower Respiratory Tract Diseases.
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) analysis is a key diagnostic tool in veterinary respiratory medicine. The IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer was developed for blood formulation and cellular counting in various fluids, but its applicability for BALF analysis remains unexplored.
objectivesTo assess the agreement between manual counting and automated counting using the IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer for total cell count (TCC) and differential cell count (DCC) in BALF samples from healthy and diseased dogs, under two pretreatment conditions: mucolytic treatment with dithiothreitol (DTT) or filtration.
methodsBALF from 10 healthy beagles and 14 diseased dogs were analyzed to compare TCC and DCC between manual and automated methods across pretreatment conditions.
resultsIn healthy dogs, Bland-Altman analysis on log-transformed data demonstrated a mean ratio close to 1 and acceptable 95% limits of agreement between manual and automated methods and between pretreatment conditions. In diseased dogs, good agreement was observed between manual and automated methods for filtered samples only; the other comparisons showed poor agreement. In both healthy and diseased dogs, Passing-Bablok regression analysis did not detect systematic or proportional bias between methods. Automated DCC was inconsistent compared with manual methods in both healthy and diseased dogs.
conclusionsThe IDEXX ProCyte Dx analyzer can be used for TCC measurement of pre-treated BALF samples in healthy dogs. In diseased dogs, filtration is preferred over DTT-treatment for automated counting, and results should be interpreted with caution due to the unpredictable influence of pretreatment on cellular counts. For DCC, automated methods are unreliable.
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.