Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of quick blood clot tests in dogs compared to lab results
By Yang, W et al.·Published in Australian veterinary journal·2018·The Animal Hospital Murdoch University, Australia·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Agreement of point-of-care prothrombin and activated partial thromboplastin time in dogs with a reference laboratory.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at blood tests for dogs to check how well a point-of-care device (IDEXX) compared to a reference laboratory machine (STAGO) in measuring blood clotting times. The results showed that the IDEXX device was very good at identifying clotting issues, with a high sensitivity of 92% for prothrombin time (PT) and 100% for activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). However, while PT results were generally reliable, the aPTT results had poor specificity, meaning it could give false positives. Overall, the IDEXX device can help vets diagnose bleeding disorders, but results should be interpreted carefully.
People also search for: dog blood test results · dog bleeding disorder diagnosis · prothrombin time test for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the agreement, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of prothrombin (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) using the point-of-care analyser SCA2000™ with IDEXX Coag Dx™ cartridges against a reference laboratory (STAGO Start 4®) in canine blood. METHODS: Citrated blood samples from 47 dogs were submitted for PT and aPTT measurements. The STAGO was taken as the gold standard and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated. Agreement between the IDEXX and STAGO test results was compared using Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression. RESULTS: The IDEXX cartridges had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-100%) and specificity of 98% (95% CI 87-100%; n = 54 samples). aPTT sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 63-100%) and specificity was 47% (95% CI 30-65%, n = 42 samples). The accuracy of IDEXX cartridges compared with the STAGO Start 4 was 96% (95% CI 91-100%) for PT and 57% (95% CI 42-72%) for aPTT. Agreement was moderate-good for PT measurements within the reference range (RR). Agreement was poor for PT measurements outside of the RR and for aPTT measurements within and outside the RR. The bias between measurements from the two machines was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: PT results from the point-of-care IDEXX were generally reliable for diagnosing or excluding a coagulopathy. The aPTT IDEXX sensitivity was excellent but the specificity was poor. Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression indicated an inconsistent bias between the two measurements and one measurement cannot be reliably converted to the other.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30255579/