Cited by 9Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryAnimal health and immunology

Evaluation of the i-STAT Alinity v in a veterinary clinical setting

Open access
Burke, Jasper E., Nguyen, Thuy Hien T., Davis, Tanya, Koenig, Amie, Lane, Selena L., Good, Jennifer, Brainard, Benjamin M.·2021·Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation

Abstract

Many point-of-care (POC) analyzers are available for the measurement of electrolytes and acid-base status in animals. We assessed the precision of the i-STAT Alinity v, a recently introduced POC analyzer, and compared it to 2 commonly used and previously validated POC analyzers (i-STAT 1, Stat Profile pHOx Ultra). Precision was evaluated by performing multiple analyses of whole blood samples from healthy dogs, cats, and horses on multiple i-STAT Alinity v analyzers. For comparison between analyzers, whole blood samples from dogs and cats presented to the emergency room were run concurrently on all 3 POC instruments. Reported values were compared by species (dogs and cats only) using Pearson correlation, and all values from all species were analyzed together for the Bland-Altman analysis. Results suggested that the i-STAT Alinity v precision was very good, with median coefficients of variability <2.5% for all measured parameters (except the anion gap), with variable ranges of coefficients of variation. In addition, good-to-excellent correlation was observed between the i-STAT Alinity v and i-STAT 1, and between the i-STAT Alinity v and Stat Profile pHOx Ultra for all parameters in both cats and dogs, respectively. In this cohort, the i-STAT Alinity v had clinically acceptable bias compared to the currently marketed analyzers and can be used for monitoring measured analytes in cats and dogs, although serial measurements in a single animal should be performed on the same analyzer whenever possible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10406387211019710

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 9

Authors
Burke, J. E., Nguyen, T. H. T., Davis, T., Koenig, A., Lane, S. L., Good, J., & Brainard, B. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Zoetis Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA
Corresponding author
Brainard, Benjamin M.
Venue
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
Published
2021-05-28
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
703-710
ISSN
  • 1040-6387 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-4936
OpenAlex
W3165623744
Cited by
9
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Zoetis
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
Keywords
point-of-care analyzers, electrolyte measurement, acid-base status, measurement precision, inter-analyzer agreement, anion gap, dogs, cats, horses, veterinary emergency medicine, whole blood analysis
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood Gas Analysis, Cats, Dogs, Electrolytes, Horses, Reproducibility of Results, Point-of-Care Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review