| Title |
The use of the rapid osmotic fragility test as an additional test to diagnose canine immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1751-0147-55-74 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geert Paes, Dominique Paepe, Evelyne Meyer, Annemarie T Kristensen, Luc Duchateau, Miguel Campos, Sylvie Daminet |
| Abstract |
Diagnosing canine immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia (IMHA) is often challenging because all currently available tests have their limitations. Dogs with IMHA often have an increased erythrocyte osmotic fragility (OF), a characteristic that is sometimes used in the diagnosis of IMHA. Since the classic osmotic fragility test (COFT) is time-consuming and requires specialized equipment, an easy and less labour-intensive rapid osmotic fragility test (ROFT) has been used in some countries, but its diagnostic value has not yet been investigated.This study aimed to evaluate erythrocyte osmotic fragility in dogs with and without IMHA, to compare results of the classic (COFT) and rapid (ROFT) test and to assess the value of the ROFT as diagnostic test for canine IMHA.Nineteen dogs with IMHA (group 1a), 21 anaemic dogs without IMHA (group 1b), 8 dogs with microcytosis (group 2), 13 hyperlipemic dogs (group 3), 10 dogs with lymphoma (group 4), 8 dogs with an infection (group 5) and 13 healthy dogs (group 6) were included.In all dogs, blood smear examination, in-saline auto-agglutination test, Coombs' test, COFT and ROFT were performed. In the COFT, OF5, OF50 and OF90 were defined as the NaCl concentrations at which respectively 5, 50 and 90% of erythrocytes were haemolysed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 19% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 25 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2013.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#506
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,941
of 224,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.