ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2025
Analytical and Quality Control Validation of a Novel Symmetric Dimethylarginine Assay in Dogs and Cats.
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn immunoturbidometric assay for symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) measurement on automated chemistry analyzers has recently become available.
objectiveTo perform analytical validation of the EUROLyser SDMA assay in dogs and cats.
methodsMethod validation experiments were performed using stored canine and feline serum. Quality control validation was performed according to Westgard. Performance goals were derived from SDMA biological variation data for both species.
resultsImprecision ranged from 3.7%-7.8% (dogs) to 6.0%-11.8% (cats) with a dispersion of ±35% for dogs and ±44% for cats. The assay showed linearity (up to 85 μg/dL [dogs], 75 μg/dL [cats]); the preliminary LoQ was 9.5 and 6.9 μg/dL, respectively. Recovery was 19.7% and 6.5%, respectively. Severe hemolysis resulted in a significant bias in both species. The EUROLyser method showed a significant negative proportional and constant bias in dogs and a significant positive proportional and negative constant bias in cats, compared to the comparative method. In dogs, the mean bias (-19.5%) and the bias at clinical decision limits exceeded the desirable bias; in cats, the mean bias (-4.0%) and the bias at clinical decision limits was < 8%. Because of high imprecision, the TE
conclusionsThe novel SDMA assay showed acceptable analytical performance, but high dispersion has consequences for the interpretation of results at reference limits and serial measurements. Method-specific reference intervals and decision limits should be generated for both species, particularly for dogs, given the significant bias vs. the comparative method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.