4.2 Article

Performance validation and method comparison of an in-clinic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of canine pancreatic lipase

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/104063871102300120

关键词

Canine pancreatic lipase; in-clinic; pancreatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diagnosis of pancreatitis is often difficult in dogs that present with acute vomiting, anorexia, and abdominal pain, as these clinical signs may occur with a variety of other illnesses. While quantitative reference laboratory methods specific for canine pancreatic lipase are available to aid in diagnosis, results are generally not available until the next day. The objective of the current study was to validate a semiquantitative in-clinic rapid test for the measurement of canine pancreas-specific lipase (cPL) and to compare its performance to the reference lab method. Comparison of the reference method for cPL to the in-clinic assay demonstrated 96-100% agreement for canine serum samples with normal levels of cPL and 88-92% agreement for samples with elevated levels of cPL. Common interfering substances such as bilirubin, lipids, or hemoglobin had no effect on assay performance. Both within-day and day-to-day variations ranged from 10% to 20% of the calculated cPL concentration, which demonstrated a high degree of precision for the in-clinic assay. Performance of 3 lots of the in-clinic assay with the same set of canine serum samples demonstrated high assay reproducibility, with interclass correlation coefficients of >= 0.93. Results of the in-clinic cPL assay, based on both visual and calculated cPL concentrations, were consistent throughout 15 months of storage. The in-clinic test provides immediate, semiquantitative results to supplement existing pancreatitis diagnostics at the time of acute illness. Because the reference and in-clinic methods are aligned, they can be used together as an immediate aid pet-side and as a fully quantitative follow-up test at the reference laboratory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据