PMID- 29505172
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20181011
LR  - 20191210
IS  - 1939-165X (Electronic)
IS  - 0275-6382 (Linking)
VI  - 47
IP  - 2
DP  - 2018 Jun
TI  - Repeat patient testing shows promise as a quality control method for veterinary 
      hematology testing.
PG  - 252-266
LID - 10.1111/vcp.12593 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Repeat patient testing-based quality control (RPT-QC) is a potential 
      method for veterinary laboratories (eg, that have a limited budget for quality 
      commercial control material [QCM] or that wish to use material with a 
      species-specific matrix). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether total error (TE(a) ), 
      probability of error detection (Ped), and probability of false rejection (Pfr) 
      similar to that achievable with QC materials can be controlled using RPT-QC 
      METHODS: Control limits (WBC, RBC, HGB, HCT, MCV, and PLT) for the Advia 120 (n = 
      23) and scil Vet ABC (n = 22) were calculated using data from normal canine 
      specimens from a routine caseload. Specimens were measured at accession and again 
      after 24 hours. Control limits were validated using 23 additional canine 
      specimens tested similarly. Achievable TEa, Ped, and Pfr were investigated using 
      the Westgard EZRules3 and compared to those achievable with commercial QCM. 
      RESULTS: Theoretical performance of RPT-QC and commercial QCM-QC are similar for 
      1-3s with both n = 1 and 1-3s with n = 2 for all measurands and both instruments. 
      Achievable TE(a) values for RPT-QC were close to ASVCP recommendations for most 
      measurands; exceptions were PLT (both instruments) and WBC (scil Vet ABC). 
      CONCLUSIONS: Repeat patient testing-based quality control advantages include a 
      species-specific matrix, low-cost, and absence of QC material deterioration over 
      time (since a fresh specimen is used each day). A potential disadvantage is daily 
      access to normal canine specimens. A challenge is determining control limits, 
      which has a subjective element. Further study is needed to confirm actual RPT-QC 
      performance and to determine if RPT-QC with abnormal patient specimens is 
      feasible.
CI  - (c) 2018 American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology.
FAU - Flatland, Bente
AU  - Flatland B
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0003-0956-5895
AD  - College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
FAU - Freeman, Kathleen P
AU  - Freeman KP
AD  - IDEXX Laboratories, Ltd., Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK.
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Validation Study
DEP - 20180305
PL  - United States
TA  - Vet Clin Pathol
JT  - Veterinary clinical pathology
JID - 9880575
SB  - IM
MH  - Animals
MH  - Dogs/*blood
MH  - Flow Cytometry/veterinary
MH  - Hematologic Tests/standards/*veterinary
MH  - Quality Control
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Advia 120
OT  - blood cell count
OT  - canine
OT  - impedance
OT  - quality assurance
EDAT- 2018/03/06 06:00
MHDA- 2018/10/12 06:00
CRDT- 2018/03/06 06:00
PHST- 2018/03/06 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2018/10/12 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2018/03/06 06:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1111/vcp.12593 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Vet Clin Pathol. 2018 Jun;47(2):252-266. doi: 10.1111/vcp.12593. Epub 2018 Mar 5.