FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / BMC Res Notes / Applicability of commercial clinical chemistry test kits for...
BMC research notes2021; 14(1); 13; doi: 10.1186/s13104-020-05434-2

Applicability of commercial clinical chemistry test kits for horse serum.

Abstract: Validation of a test method is critical for confirming that the test can generate accurate and precise data. Although commercial biochemical test kits exist there are no specific and validated commercial clinical chemistry test kits designed for horses. The aim of this study was to validate commercial clinical chemistry test kits designed for a human serum for use in horses. Results: Blood samples were collected from 29 apparently healthy adult male horses and pooled serum was prepared. Validation comprises replication and recovery experiments. Total observable error (TE), sigma (σ) metrics, and quality goal index (QGI) were used to support the validation studies. Intra- and inter-assay variability was 2.05% and 2.08%, 2.26% and 1.89%, 2.4% and 1.63%, for total cholesterol, urea and total protein, respectively; recovery was 99.46%, 97.32%, and 100.1% for total cholesterol, urea and total protein, respectively. TE% for the specified analytes was within the total allowable error (TE). All three analytes satisfied the recommended requirement (> 3σ). The QGI for urea, as it had below 6σ was 0.95 indicating imprecision and inaccuracy. The results endorse the suitability of the studied commercial test kits and illustrated the acceptance criteria for horse's serum.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-01-07 PubMed ID: 33413644PubMed Central: PMC7792317DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-05434-2Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

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 study validates the use of commercial clinical chemistry test kits designed for human serum in horse serum. The results show applicability in testing for total cholesterol, urea, and total protein in horses, despite minor inaccuracies in urea readings.

Study Overview and Objective

  • The essential focus of this research was to ascertain if commercially available clinical chemistry test kits manufactured for human serum could be effectually used in horse serum.
  • The necessity of this study was underlined by the current lack of commercially validated clinical chemistry test kits specifically designed for horses.
  • This study aimed to fill that gap and provide a validated, effective testing method for horse serum using human test kits.

Methodology

  • The research directly involved the collection of blood samples from 29 seemingly healthy, adult male horses. This was then utilized to create pooled serum samples.
  • The process of validation required both replication and recovery experiments.
  • Key supporting elements of these validation studies included total observable error (TE), sigma (σ) metrics, and quality goal index (QGI).

Results

  • The variability within and between assays was reasonable, with values recorded at or under 2.4% for all three tested elements (total cholesterol, urea, and total protein).
  • For these same three components (total cholesterol, urea, and total proteins), the percentage of recovery was near to or exactly 100%.
  • The total observable error values for these three elements were all within permissive ranges; this signifies that the error rates were deemed acceptable.
  • All three of the tested analytes satisfied the requirement of being greater than 3σ, a significant factor denoting process capability.

Takeaways

  • Though the tests for urea had a QGI of less than six sigma (6σ), ie, 0.95, indicating some degree of imprecision and inaccuracy, overall, the results were satisfactory and endorsed the viability of these commercial clinical chemistry test kits for horse serum.
  • The study thus provides grounds for setting acceptable criteria for testing horse serum with kits initially intended for human serum testing.

Cite This Article

APA
Megerssa YC, Gari FR, Woldemariyam FT. (2021). Applicability of commercial clinical chemistry test kits for horse serum. BMC Res Notes, 14(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05434-2

Publication

BMC research notes
ISSN: 1756-0500
NlmUniqueID: 101462768
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 1
Pages: 13
PII: 13

Researcher Affiliations

Megerssa, Yoseph Cherinet
  • Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. yoseph.cherinet@aau.edu.et.
Gari, Fikru Regassa
  • Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Woldemariyam, Fanos Tadesse
  • Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
  • Department of Biosystems, Division of Animal and Human Health Engineering, Laboratory of Host-Pathogen interaction, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Benchmarking
  • Clinical Chemistry Tests
  • Horses
  • Indicators and Reagents
  • Male
  • Urea

Grant Funding

  • RD/LT/PY-034/2019 / Addis Ababa University

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that no competing interests to declare.

References

This article includes 25 references
  1. WHO Regional Committee for Africa. strengthening public health laboratories in the WHO African region: a critical need for disease control. WHO Regional Committee for Africa Final Report: 58th Session of the WHO Regional Committee for Africa. WHO Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville 2008; p. 11–13.
  2. Rishniw M, Pion PD, Maher T. The quality of veterinary in-clinic and reference laboratory biochemical testing.. Vet Clin Pathol 2012 Mar;41(1):92-109.
    pubmed: 22250729doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.2011.00386.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Cho MC, Kim SY, Jeong TD, Lee W, Chun S, Min WK. Statistical validation of reagent lot change in the clinical chemistry laboratory can confer insights on good clinical laboratory practice.. Ann Clin Biochem 2014 Nov;51(Pt 6):688-94.
    doi: 10.1177/0004563214520749pubmed: 24497612google scholar: lookup
  4. Miller WG, Erek A, Cunningham TD, Oladipo O, Scott MG, Johnson RE. Commutability limitations influence quality control results with different reagent lots.. Clin Chem 2011 Jan;57(1):76-83.
    doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.148106pubmed: 21097677google scholar: lookup
  5. Agarwal R, Chaturvedi S, Chhillar N, Goyal R, Pant I, Tripathi CB. Role of intervention on laboratory performance: evaluation of quality indicators in a tertiary care hospital.. Indian J Clin Biochem 2012 Jan;27(1):61-8.
    doi: 10.1007/s12291-011-0182-7pmc: PMC3286585pubmed: 23277714google scholar: lookup
  6. Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R. Harmonized guidelines for single-laboratory validation of methods of analysis. IUPAC technical report. Pure Appl Chem 2002;74(5):835–855.
    doi: 10.1351/pac200274050835google scholar: lookup
  7. Pasciu V, Baralla E, Nieddu M, Succu S, Porcu C, Leoni GG, Sechi P, Bomboi GC, Berlinguer F. Commercial human kits' applicability for the determination of biochemical parameters in sheep plasma.. J Vet Med Sci 2019 Feb 28;81(2):294-297.
    doi: 10.1292/jvms.18-0356pmc: PMC6395207pubmed: 30068832google scholar: lookup
  8. . Guidance for industry bioanalytical method validation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services food and drug administration centre for drug evaluation and research (CDER) Center for Veterinary medicine (CVM). 2001.
  9. . EMA Guideline on Bioanalytical Method Validation 2011. .
  10. Mano Y. Method validation studies and an inter-laboratory cross validation study of lenvatinib assay in human plasma using LC-MS/MS.. Pract Lab Med 2018 Nov;12:e00103.
    doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2018.e00103pmc: PMC6041428pubmed: 30009246google scholar: lookup
  11. Harr KE, Flatland B, Nabity M, Freeman KP. ASVCP guidelines: allowable total error guidelines for biochemistry.. Vet Clin Pathol 2013 Dec;42(4):424-36.
    doi: 10.1111/vcp.12101pubmed: 24320779google scholar: lookup
  12. . OIE Validation Guidelines 2014 Selection and use of reference samples and panels. .
  13. Ferryanto L. Statistical sampling plan for design verification & validation of medical devices. J Valid Tech 2015;21(1):1–9.
  14. Westgard JO. Method validation-the experimental plan. Basic Method Validation 3. Madison: Westgard QC, Inc; 2008. pp. 61–69.
  15. Westgard JO. Method validation-the replication experiment. Basic Method Validation 3. Madison: Westgard QC, Inc; 2008. pp. 114–122.
  16. Lee JW, Devanarayan V, Barrett YC, Weiner R, Allinson J, Fountain S, Keller S, Weinryb I, Green M, Duan L, Rogers JA, Millham R, O'Brien PJ, Sailstad J, Khan M, Ray C, Wagner JA. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement.. Pharm Res 2006 Feb;23(2):312-28.
    doi: 10.1007/s11095-005-9045-3pubmed: 16397743google scholar: lookup
  17. Westgard JO. Method validation-the interference and recovery experiments. Basic Method Validation 3. Madison: Westgard QC, Inc; 2008. pp. 154–166.
  18. Nevalainen D, Berte L, Kraft C, Leigh E, Picaso L, Morgan T. Evaluating laboratory performance on quality indicators with the six sigma scale.. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000 Apr;124(4):516-9.
    pubmed: 10747306doi: 10.5858/2000-124-0516-elpoqigoogle scholar: lookup
  19. Westgard JO. A method evaluation decision chart (MEDx chart) for judging method performance.. Clin Lab Sci 1995 Sep-Oct;8(5):277-83.
    pubmed: 10172753
  20. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of sigma metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance.. Am J Clin Pathol 2006 Mar;125(3):343-54.
    doi: 10.1177/104063870802000502pubmed: 16613337google scholar: lookup
  21. Daniel W, Anders K, John W, Jan S, Kristen M. Evaluation of precision performance of quantitative measurement methods; Approved guideline. NCCLS Document EP5-A2 2004;24(25):7–13.
  22. Andreasson U, Perret-Liaudet A, van Waalwijk van Doorn LJ, Blennow K, Chiasserini D, Engelborghs S, Fladby T, Genc S, Kruse N, Kuiperij HB, Kulic L, Lewczuk P, Mollenhauer B, Mroczko B, Parnetti L, Vanmechelen E, Verbeek MM, Winblad B, Zetterberg H, Koel-Simmelink M, Teunissen CE. A Practical Guide to Immunoassay Method Validation.. Front Neurol 2015;6:179.
    pmc: PMC4541289pubmed: 26347708doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00179google scholar: lookup
  23. Valentin MA, Ma S, Zhao A, Legay F, Avrameas A. Validation of immunoassay for protein biomarkers: bioanalytical study plan implementation to support pre-clinical and clinical studies.. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2011 Jul 15;55(5):869-77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2011.03.033pubmed: 21530130google scholar: lookup
  24. Westgard JO. Six sigma quality design and control. 2. Madison: Westgard QC Inc.; 2006.
  25. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of sigma metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance.. Am J Clin Pathol 2006 Mar;125(3):343-54.
    doi: 10.1309/V50H4FRVVWX12C79pubmed: 16613337google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.