• 1.

    Allison RW. Laboratory evaluation of plasma and serum proteins. In: Thrall MA, ed. Veterinary hematology and clinical chemistry. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2012;460475.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    George JW. The usefulness and limitations of hand-held refractometers in veterinary laboratory medicine: an historical and technical review. Vet Clin Pathol 2001;30:201210.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Melillo A. Applications of serum protein electrophoresis in exotic pet medicine. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 2013;16:211225.

  • 4.

    Yam E, Hosgood G, Rossi G, et al. Synthetic colloid fluids (6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 and 4% succinylated gelatin) interfere with total plasma protein measurements in vitro. Vet Clin Pathol 2018;47:575581.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Yam E, Boyd CJ, Hosgood G, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) and succinylated gelatine (4%) interfere with refractometry in dogs with haemorrhagic shock. Vet Anaesth Analg 2019;46:579586.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Katsoulos PD, Athanasiou LV, Karatzia MA, et al. Comparison of biuret and refractometry methods for the serum total proteins measurement in ruminants. Vet Clin Pathol 2017;46:620624.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Cray C, Rodriguez M, Arheart KL. Use of refractometry for determination of psittacine plasma protein concentration. Vet Clin Pathol 2008;37:438442.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Westgard QC. “Westgard Rules” and multirules. Available at: www.westgard.com/mltirule.htm. Accessed Aug 29, 2020.

  • 9.

    Jensen AL, Kjelgaard-Hansen M. Method comparison in the clinical laboratory. Vet Clin Pathol 2006;35:276286.

  • 10.

    Harr KE, Flatland B, Nabity M, et al. ASVCP guidelines: allowable total error guidelines for biochemistry. Vet Clin Pathol 2013;42:424436.

  • 11.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Biochim Clin 1987;11:399404.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2016.

  • 13.

    Briend-Marchal A, Médaille C, Braun JP. Comparison of total protein measurement by biuret method and refractometry in canine and feline plasma. Rev Med Vet 2005;156:615619.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Hayes GM, Mathews K, Floras A, et al. Refractometric total plasma protein measurement as a cage-side indicator of hypoalbuminemia and hypoproteinemia in hospitalized dogs. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio) 2011;21:356362.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Carlson GP, Harrold DR. Relationship of protein concentration and water content of equine serum and plasma samples. Vet Clin Pathol 1977;6:1820.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Andreasen CB, Latimer KS, Kircher IM, et al. Determination of chicken and turkey plasma and serum protein concentrations by refractometry and the biuret method. Avian Dis 1989;33:9396.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Green SA, Jenkins SJ, Clark PA. A comparison of chemical and electrophoretic methods of serum protein determinations in clinically normal domestic animals of various ages. Cornell Vet 1982;72:416426.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Lackhoff A, Walden A. Comparative study of total plasma protein concentration in the dog, cat and horse by the biuret and refractometry methods. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1984;97:810.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Legendre KP, Leissinger M, Le Donne V, et al. The effect of urea on refractometric total protein measurement in dogs and cats with azotemia. Vet Clin Pathol 2017;46:138142.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Sutton RH. The refractometric determination of the total protein concentration in some animal plasmas. N Z Vet J 1976;24:141148.

  • 21.

    Tamborini A, Papakonstantinou S, Brown A, et al. Comparison of manual and laboratory PCV and total protein using EDTA and lithium heparin canine samples. J Small Anim Pract 2014;55:258264.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Arfuso F, Giannetto C, Rizzo M, et al. Comparison of refractometric and biuretic methods for the assay of total protein in horse serum and plasma under various storage conditions. J Equine Vet Sci 2018;61:5864.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Lumeij JT, De Bruijne JJ. Evaluation of the refractometric method for the determination of total protein in avian plasma or serum. Avian Pathol 1985;14:441444.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Lumeij JT, Maclean B. Total protein determination in pigeon plasma and serum: comparison of refractometric methods with the biuret method. J Avian Med Surg 1996;10:150152.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Cannon DC, Olitzky I, Inkoen JA. Proteins. In: Henry RJ, Cannon DC, Winkelman JW, eds. Clinical chemistry principles and technics. 2nd ed. Hagerstown, Md: Harper & Row, 1974;407421.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Dubin S, Hunt P. Effect of anticoagulants and glucose on refractometric estimation of protein in canine and rabbit plasma. Lab Anim Sci 1978;28:541544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    McSherry BJ, Al-Baker J. Comparison of total serum protein determined by t/s meter and biuret technique. Vet Clin Pathol 1976;5:412.

  • 28.

    Dawnay AB, Hirst AD, Perry DE, et al. A critical assessment of current analytical methods for the routine assay of serum total protein and recommendations for their improvement. Ann Clin Biochem 1991;28:556567.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of plasma total solids concentration as measured by refractometry and plasma total protein concentration as measured by biuret assay in pet rabbits and ferrets

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the agreement between plasma total solids (TS) concentration as measured by refractometry and plasma total protein (TP) concentration as measured by biuret assay in pet rabbits and ferrets.

SAMPLE

253 and 146 blood samples from 146 and 121 ferrets and rabbits, respectively, with results of CBC and plasma biochemical analyses.

PROCEDURES

Data were collected from medical records regarding plasma TS and TP concentrations, PCV, plasma biochemical values, plasma appearance, and patient signalment. Agreement was determined between refractometer and biuret assay (reference method) values for plasma TS and TP concentration. Other variables were examined for an impact on this agreement.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD plasma TP and TS concentrations were 6.4 ± 0.8 mg/dL and 6.6 ± 0.8 mg/dL, respectively, for rabbits and 6.3 ± 1.2 mg/dL and 6.4 ± 1.1 mg/dL for ferrets. On average, refractometer values overestimated plasma TP concentrations as measured by biuret assay. Plasma cholesterol, glucose, and BUN concentrations and hemolysis and lipemia had significant effects on this bias for ferrets; only BUN concentration had an effect on bias for rabbits given the available data. Other variables had no influence on bias. The limits of agreement were wider than the total allowable analytic error, and > 5% of the data points were outside acceptance limits, indicating that the 2 methods were not in clinical agreement.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Refractometer measurements of plasma TS concentration failed to provide a good estimation of biuret assay measurements of plasma TP concentration in rabbits and ferrets, suggesting that these 2 analytic methods and the results they yield cannot be used interchangeably in these species.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the agreement between plasma total solids (TS) concentration as measured by refractometry and plasma total protein (TP) concentration as measured by biuret assay in pet rabbits and ferrets.

SAMPLE

253 and 146 blood samples from 146 and 121 ferrets and rabbits, respectively, with results of CBC and plasma biochemical analyses.

PROCEDURES

Data were collected from medical records regarding plasma TS and TP concentrations, PCV, plasma biochemical values, plasma appearance, and patient signalment. Agreement was determined between refractometer and biuret assay (reference method) values for plasma TS and TP concentration. Other variables were examined for an impact on this agreement.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD plasma TP and TS concentrations were 6.4 ± 0.8 mg/dL and 6.6 ± 0.8 mg/dL, respectively, for rabbits and 6.3 ± 1.2 mg/dL and 6.4 ± 1.1 mg/dL for ferrets. On average, refractometer values overestimated plasma TP concentrations as measured by biuret assay. Plasma cholesterol, glucose, and BUN concentrations and hemolysis and lipemia had significant effects on this bias for ferrets; only BUN concentration had an effect on bias for rabbits given the available data. Other variables had no influence on bias. The limits of agreement were wider than the total allowable analytic error, and > 5% of the data points were outside acceptance limits, indicating that the 2 methods were not in clinical agreement.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Refractometer measurements of plasma TS concentration failed to provide a good estimation of biuret assay measurements of plasma TP concentration in rabbits and ferrets, suggesting that these 2 analytic methods and the results they yield cannot be used interchangeably in these species.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Eshar (deshar@vet.k-state.edu).