Comparative analysis of POC-Glu and POC-Lac against automated analyzers in juvenile pigs reveals strong correlation.
Porcine glucose and lactate concentrations measured with a point-of-care glucometer (POC-Glu; Guide Me) and a POC lactometer (POC-Lac; Lactate Plus) were compared to those from a comparative method (CM; COBAS-501c). Fresh whole blood samples (n = 175 glucose; n = 272 lactate) from 10 healthy juvenile commercial-cross pigs (5 barrows, 5 gilts; 79-91-d-old) were collected over 12 d under various conditions. Comparisons were made with the Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman method with multiple measurements per subject. The allowable total error (TEa) was set at 20% for glucose and 40% for lactate. Correlation with CM was high for POC-Glu (r = 0.886; 95% CI [0.849, 0.914]) and very high for POC-Lac (r = 0.935; 95% CI [0.918, 0.949]) with constant and proportional biases (intercept = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.13] mmol/L, slope = 0.06, 95% CI [0.06, 0.07] mmol/L for glucose; intercept = 0.075, 95% CI [0.050, 0.104] mmol/L, slope = 0.797, 95% CI [0.775, 0.819] mmol/L for lactate). Acceptance limits based on combined inherent imprecision (CIP) were ±5.2% for glucose and ±8.1% for lactate. The observed total errors (TEobs) were 5.42% for POC-Glu and 29.9% for POC-Lac at the decision threshold of 3.0 mmol/L, both within the set TEa. Both POC-Glu and POC-Lac are practical and reliable tools for use in juvenile pigs, with satisfactory agreement to the reference method, although interpretation of POC-Lac results requires greater caution due to a significant matrix effect, underscoring the need for method- and matrix-specific RIs, particularly for lactate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hampton et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: