Evaluation of the i-STAT Alinity v in a veterinary clinical setting
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 inter-assay coefficients of variation for glucose, sodium, potassium, ionized calcium, hematocrit, pH, base excess, pO2, tCO2, HCO3, pCO2, and sO2 were 1.29%, 0.35%, 0%, 1.09%, 1.75%, 0.09%, 0%, 1.70%, 2.25%, 1.30%, 1.93%, and 0%, respectively.
“The inter-assay coefficients of variation for glucose, sodium, potassium, ionized calcium, hematocrit, pH, base excess, pO2, tCO2, HCO3, pCO2, and sO2 (%) were 1.29, 0.35, 0, 1.09, 1.75, 0.09, 0, 1.70, 2.25, 1.30, 1.93, and 0, respectively (Burke et al., 2021).”
From A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of providing a rest period during long-distance transportation of surplus dairy calves: Part II. Effect on hematological variables (2024) · cites this paper as Burke et al., 2021
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-05-28
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 703-710
- ISSN
- 1040-6387 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4936
- PMC
- PMC8229840
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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