To assess agreement between 2 benchtop blood gas analyzers developed by 1 manufacturer (BGA 1 and BGA 2 [a newer model with reduced maintenance requirements]) and a reference chemistry analyzer for measurement of electrolyte (sodium, chloride, and potassium) in blood samples from dogs.
17 healthy staff- and student-owned dogs and 23 client-owned dogs admitted to an emergency and intensive care service.
Blood collected by venipuncture was placed in lithium heparin–containing tubes. Aliquots were analyzed immediately with each BGA. Samples were centrifuged, and plasma was analyzed with the reference analyzer. Results for each BGA were compared with results for the reference analyzer by Passing-Bablok regression analysis. Percentage differences between BGA and reference analyzer results were compared with published guidelines for total allowable error.
Proportional bias was detected for measurement of chloride concentration (slope, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.8), and constant positive bias was detected for measurement of chloride (y-intercept, 34, mmol/L; 95% CI, 16.9 to 38 mmol/L) and potassium (y-intercept, 0.1 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.2 mmol/L) concentrations with BGA 1. There was no significant bias for measurement of potassium or chloride concentration with BGA 2 or sodium concentration with either BGA. Differences from the reference analyzer result exceeded total allowable error guidelines for ≥ 1 sample/analyte/BGA, but median observed measurement differences between each BGA and the reference analyzer did not.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Good agreement with reference analyzer results was found for measurement of the selected electrolyte concentrations in canine blood samples with each BGA.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate accuracy and reliability of 3 novel goniometers for measurement of canine stifle joint angles and compare the results with those obtained with a universal goniometer (UG).
SAMPLE 8 pelvic limbs from 4 canine cadavers.
PROCEDURES Each limb was secured to a wooden platform at 3 arbitrarily selected fixed stifle joint angles. Goniometry was performed with 2 smartphone-based applications (novel goniometers A and B), a digital goniometer (novel goniometer C), and a UG; 3 evaluators performed measurements in triplicate for each angle with each device. Results were compared with stifle joint angle measurements on radiographs (used as a gold standard). Accuracy was determined by calculation of bias and total error, coefficients of variation were calculated to estimate reliability, and strength of linear association between radiographic and goniometer measurements was assessed by calculation of correlation coefficients.
RESULTS Mean coefficient of variation was lowest for the UG (4.88%), followed by novel goniometers B (7.37%), A (7.57%), and C (12.71%). Correlation with radiographic measurements was highest for the UG (r = 0.97), followed by novel goniometers B (0.93), A (0.90), and C (0.78). Constant bias was present for all devices except novel goniometer B. The UG and novel goniometer A had positive constant bias; novel goniometer C had negative constant bias. Total error at 50° and 100° angles was > 5% for all devices.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE None of the devices accurately represented radiographically measured stifle joint angles. Additional veterinary studies are indicated prior to the use of novel goniometers in dogs.