Analysis of feline, canine and equine hemograms using the QBC VetAutoread.
Abstract: Blood samples form 120 consecutive clinical cases (40 cats, 40 dogs and 40 horses) were analyzed on the QBC VetAutoread analyzer and the results compared with those obtained by a Baker 9000 electronic resistance cell counter and a 100-cell manual differential leukocyte (WBC) count. Packed cell volume (PCV), hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, mean cell hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and platelet, total WBC, granulocytes, and lymphocyte plus monocyte (L+M) counts were determined. Indistinct separation of red blood cell and granulocytes layers on the QBC VetAutoread was observed in samples from five cats (12.5%), two dogs (5%), and one horse. Significantly different (P=0.002) median values for the two methods were obtained for PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC and platelet count in cats; PCV, MCHC, WBC, count and granulocytes count in dogs; and PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC and WBC, granulocytes and platelet counts in horses. Results from the QBC VetAutoread should not be interpreted using reference ranges established using other equipment. Results were abnormal on a limited number of samples; however, when correlation coefficients were low, marked discrepancy existed between values within as well as outside of reference ranges. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were excellent (r=0.93) for PCV and Hb concentration in dogs, and Hb concentration and WBC count in horses. Correlation was good (r=0.80-0.92) for PCV and Hb concentration in cats, WBC count in dogs, and PCV, granulocytes count and platelet count in horses. For remaining parameters, correlation was fair to poor (r=0.79). Acceptable correlations (r>0.80) were achieved between the two test systems for all equine values except MCHC and L+M count, but only for PCV and HB concentration in feline and canine blood samples.
Publication Date: 2002-06-21 PubMed ID: 12075520DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.1999.tb01058.xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
- Blood Analysis
- Clinical Examination
- Clinical Findings
- Clinical Pathology
- Clinical Study
- Comparative Study
- Correlation Analysis
- Diagnosis
- Diagnostic Imaging
- Diagnostic Technique
- Disease Diagnosis
- Equine Health
- Equine Studies
- Hematology
- Hemoglobin
- Horses
- Laboratory Methods
- Veterinary Care
- Veterinary Medicine
- Veterinary Research
- Veterinary Science
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
This research investigates the results provided by the QBC VetAutoread analyzer for blood samples of cats, dogs, and horses; it compares these results with those from a Baker 9000 electronic resistance cell counter and a manual WBC count. The study reveals significant disparities between the two methods, suggesting reference ranges established with other equipment shouldn’t be used to interpret QBC VetAutoread’s results, even though correlations were acceptable for some parameters.
Methodology
- 120 blood samples (40 each from cats, dogs and horses) were collected and analyzed by the QBC VetAutoread analyzer.
- The obtained results were then compared with those derived from a Baker 9000 electronic resistance cell counter and a 100-cell manual differential WBC count.
- The counts of packed cell volume (PCV), hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, mean cell hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), platelets, total WBC, granulocytes, and lymphocyte plus monocyte (L+M) were determined.
- The correlation between the two methodologies was evaluated using Spearman rank correlation coefficients.
Results
- The separation of red blood cell and granulocytes layers was unclear on the QBC VetAutoread in few samples from cats, dogs, and a horse.
- Significantly distinct median values were derived from both methods for various counts across the different species, including PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC, and platelet from cats; PCV, MCHC, WBC counts and granulocytes from dogs; as well as PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC, WBC, granulocyte, and platelet counts from horses.
- Interestingly, Spearman rank correlation coefficients suggested excellent correlation (r=0.93) for some parameters – primarily PCV and Hb concentration in dogs, as well as Hb concentration and WBC count in horses.
- Simultaneously, the correlation for some counts, such as PCV and Hb concentration in cats, WBC count in dogs and PCV, granulocytes count, and platelet count in horses, was good, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.92.
- However, the correlation for the remaining parameters was described as fair to poor according to the correlation coefficients (r=0.79).
Conclusions
- The study suggests that QBC VetAutoread’s results should not be interpreted based on reference ranges established through other equipment, given the significant difference in median values obtained from the two methods.
- Nevertheless, acceptable correlations were found between the two testing systems for all equine values, except for MCHC and L+M counts. This was also true for PCV and HB concentrations in both feline and canine samples.
- Thus, while there are variances between the two systems, the VetAutoread could still be a reliable tool in certain parameters.
Cite This Article
APA
Papasouliotis K, Cue S, Graham M, Sparkes AH, Gruffydd-Jones T.
(2002).
Analysis of feline, canine and equine hemograms using the QBC VetAutoread.
Vet Clin Pathol, 28(3), 109-115.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-165x.1999.tb01058.x Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Division of Companion Animals, University of Bristol, Langford, UK. kos.papasouliotis@bris.ac.uk
Citations
This article has been cited 3 times.- Zelmer KC, Bauer N, Moritz A. Evaluation of the scil vCell 5, a novel laser- and impedance-based point-of-care hematology analyzer, for use in dogs and cats. J Vet Diagn Invest 2022 May;34(3):504-517.
- Becker M, Moritz A, Giger U. Comparative clinical study of canine and feline total blood cell count results with seven in-clinic and two commercial laboratory hematology analyzers. Vet Clin Pathol 2008 Dec;37(4):373-84.
- Zelmer KC, Moritz A, Bauer N. Evaluation of canine and feline leukocyte differential counts obtained with the scil vCell 5 compared to the Advia 2120 hematology analyzer and a manual method. J Vet Diagn Invest 2023 Nov;35(6):679-697.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
