> Details

Steyrer, Christof; Pohlin, Friederike; Meyer, Leith C. R.; Buss, Peter; Hooijberg, Emma H.

Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)
  • Contributor: Steyrer, Christof; Pohlin, Friederike; Meyer, Leith C. R.; Buss, Peter; Hooijberg, Emma H.
  • imprint: Wiley, 2022
  • Published in: Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 51 (2022) 2, Seite 225-230
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1111/vcp.13076
  • ISSN: 0275-6382; 1939-165X
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Hematocrit (HCT) determination is an integral part of health and disease assessments in captive and wild white rhinoceroses. Several affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in‐clinic and field use and have the advantage of being able to measure a large number of additional measurands. However, the accuracy of these analyzers for rhinoceros HCT measurements has not yet been investigated.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>We aimed to compare the HCT results generated by the EPOC portable analyzer system and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 with the gold standard of a manual packed cell volume (PCV) measured using the microhematocrit method.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Hematocrits were measured with the EPOC and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 (bovine setting) and compared with the PCVs of 69 white rhinoceros whole blood samples. Results were compared using Bland–Altman difference plots and Passing‐Bablok regression analysis. A total allowable analytical error of 10% was set as the performance goal.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A significant positive bias, with a mean of 7.7% for the EPOC and 17.9% for the Abaxis, was found compared with the manual PCV method.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>The allowable error goal of 10% was not exceeded with the EPOC analyzer. Although not analytically equivalent to the gold standard, the EPOC results could therefore be used as approximations in critical situations where manual measurements cannot be performed. The Abaxis exceeded this allowable error and overestimated HCTs in rhinoceroses. Therefore, method‐specific reference intervals should be used.</jats:p></jats:sec>