Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)

dc.contributor.authorSteyrer, Christof
dc.contributor.authorPohlin, Friederike
dc.contributor.authorMeyer, Leith Carl Rodney
dc.contributor.authorBuss, Peter Erik
dc.contributor.authorHooijberg, Emma Henriette
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-06T12:10:40Z
dc.date.available2022-12-06T12:10:40Z
dc.date.issued2022-06
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Hematocrit (HCT) determination is an integral part of health and disease assessments in captive and wild white rhinoceroses. Several affordable automated hematology analyzers have been developed for in-clinic and field use and have the advantage of being able to measure a large number of additional measurands. However, the accuracy of these analyzers for rhinoceros HCT measurements has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the HCT results generated by the EPOC portable analyzer system and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 with the gold standard of a manual packed cell volume (PCV) measured using the microhematocrit method. METHODS: Hematocrits were measured with the EPOC and the Abaxis VetScan HM5 (bovine setting) and compared with the PCVs of 69 white rhinoceros whole blood samples. Results were compared using Bland–Altman difference plots and PassingBablok regression analysis. A total allowable analytical error of 10% was set as the performance goal. RESULTS: A significant positive bias, with a mean of 7.7% for the EPOC and 17.9% for the Abaxis, was found compared with the manual PCV method. CONCLUSIONS: The allowable error goal of 10% was not exceeded with the EPOC analyzer. Although not analytically equivalent to the gold standard, the EPOC results could therefore be used as approximations in critical situations where manual measurements cannot be performed. The Abaxis exceeded this allowable error and overestimated HCTs in rhinoceroses. Therefore, method-specific reference intervals should be used.en_US
dc.description.departmentCentre for Veterinary Wildlife Studiesen_US
dc.description.departmentCompanion Animal Clinical Studiesen_US
dc.description.departmentParaclinical Sciencesen_US
dc.description.librariandm2022en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipInternational Rhino Foundation; Veterinary Wildlife Services, Kruger National Park; Zebra Foundation for Veterinary Zoological Education; South African National Parks; University of Pretoriaen_US
dc.description.urihttp://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/vcpen_US
dc.identifier.citationSteyrer, C., Miller, M., Hewlett, J., Buss, P. & Hooijberg, E.H. Comparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum). Veterinary Clinical Pathology 2022;51:225– 230. doi: 10.1111/vcp.13076.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1939-165X (online)
dc.identifier.issn0275-6382 (print)
dc.identifier.other10.1111/vcp.13076
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/88658
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rights© 2022 The Authors. Veterinary Clinical Pathology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.en_US
dc.subjectAbaxis HM5en_US
dc.subjectEPOCen_US
dc.subjectMethod comparisonen_US
dc.subjectPacked cell volumeen_US
dc.subjectPoint-of-careen_US
dc.subjectWhite rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)en_US
dc.subjectHematocrit (HCT)en_US
dc.titleComparison of three hematocrit measurement methods in the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Steyrer_Comparison_2021.pdf
Size:
1.06 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: