0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Freestyle Optium Neo H and Centrivet GK Device in the Diagnosis of Hypoglycaemia and Hyperketonaemia in Dairy Goats: A Field Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Background

          There is a lack of data on the validation and diagnostic performance of the Freestyle Optium Neo‐H (Freestyle) and Centrivet GK (Centrivet) devices for the diagnosis of hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia and hyperketonaemia in goats.

          Objectives

          The aim of the present study was to validate the Freestyle and Centrivet for the analysis of whole blood beta‐hydroxybutyric acid (BHBA) and to validate the Freestyle for the analysis of whole blood glucose concentrations using the reference method (RM) in goat blood collected from the jugular and ear veins.

          Methods

          Venous blood samples were utilised to assess glucose and BHBA concentrations using the Freestyle, Centrivet and RM. The cut‐off point of BHBA was ≥ 0.8 mmol/L for hyperketonaemia. A total of 198 paired blood samples (vena jugularis and ear vein) were collected from 99 hair goats. The cut‐off point for hypoglycaemia diagnosis was < 49 mg/dL.

          Results

          There were proportional but no constant errors between RM and Freestyle and Centrivet for BHBA, and both proportional and constant errors were observed for glucose analysis. The mean bias for BHBA analysis was 0.14 and 0.06 mmol/L (Freestyle‐RM) 0.51 and 0.16 mmol/L (Centrivet‐RM) for jugular and ear veins, respectively. The mean bias for blood glucose analysis was 0.0 and 5.6 mg/L between Freestyle and RM in the jugular and ear veins, respectively. The sensitivity (Centrivet: 50%–61.3%; Freestyle: 93.6%–75.8%) and specificity (Centrivet GK: 75.7%–73%; Freestyle: 37.8%–70.3%) were determined in jugular and ear vein blood for hyperketonaemia diagnostics, respectively. The AUC of Freestyle was 0.89 and 0.95 in the jugular and ear vein for hypoglycaemia, respectively. The sensitivity of Freestyle was 60.3% and 96.8% in the jugular and ear vein for hypoglycaemia. The specificity of Freestyle was 100.0% and 76.7% for hypoglycaemia in jugular and ear veins, respectively.

          Conclusions

          Freestyle demonstrated acceptable diagnostic performance for hypoglycaemia in ear veins, but neither Freestyle nor Centrivet showed sufficient diagnostic performance for hyperketonaemia. Both analysers were not interchangeable with RM in BHBA and glucose analysis.

          Abstract

          In this study, the diagnostic performance of Freestyle Optium Neo‐H and Centrivet GK devices in hyperketonaemia and hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia goats was evaluated. Freestyle demonstrated acceptable diagnostic performance for hypoglycaemia in ear veins, but neither Freestyle nor Centrivet showed sufficient diagnostic performance for hyperketonaemia. The findings suggest a need for future studies focused on the development of Freestyle Optium Neo‐H and Centrivet GK chips and test kits specifically tailored for goats.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

          The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen’s kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from −1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen’s suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding Bland Altman analysis

              In a contemporary clinical laboratory it is very common to have to assess the agreement between two quantitative methods of measurement. The correct statistical approach to assess this degree of agreement is not obvious. Correlation and regression studies are frequently proposed. However, correlation studies the relationship between one variable and another, not the differences, and it is not recommended as a method for assessing the comparability between methods.
In 1983 Altman and Bland (B&A) proposed an alternative analysis, based on the quantification of the agreement between two quantitative measurements by studying the mean difference and constructing limits of agreement.
The B&A plot analysis is a simple way to evaluate a bias between the mean differences, and to estimate an agreement interval, within which 95% of the differences of the second method, compared to the first one, fall. Data can be analyzed both as unit differences plot and as percentage differences plot.
The B&A plot method only defines the intervals of agreements, it does not say whether those limits are acceptable or not. Acceptable limits must be defined a priori, based on clinical necessity, biological considerations or other goals.
The aim of this article is to provide guidance on the use and interpretation of Bland Altman analysis in method comparison studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                muratuztimur@yahoo.com
                Journal
                Vet Med Sci
                Vet Med Sci
                10.1002/(ISSN)2053-1095
                VMS3
                Veterinary Medicine and Science
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2053-1095
                10 January 2025
                January 2025
                : 11
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/vms3.v11.1 )
                : e70159
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Department of Internal Medicine Bingöl University Bingol Turkey
                [ 2 ] Free Researcher for Clinical Biochemistry İstanbul Turkey
                [ 3 ] Department of Statistics Faculty of Science University of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Muğla Turkey
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Murat Uztimür ( muratuztimur@ 123456yahoo.com )

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-1825
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-6490
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5242-5671
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-0069
                Article
                VMS370159
                10.1002/vms3.70159
                11720734
                39792046
                dfe82ae4-10ea-46f0-b8b5-bffbf15da742
                © 2025 The Author(s). Veterinary Medicine and Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 November 2024
                : 01 August 2024
                : 29 November 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Pages: 9, Words: 6374
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Article
                Ruminants
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2025
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.5.2 mode:remove_FC converted:10.01.2025

                bhba,diagnosis,goat,poc devices,pregnancy toxaemia
                bhba, diagnosis, goat, poc devices, pregnancy toxaemia

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content376

                Most referenced authors305