Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates Vcheck C10 performance in feline serum, suggesting reliable point-of-care testing capabilities.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the analytical performance of the Vcheck C10 dry chemistry analyzer and evaluate its comparability with a reference wet chemistry system (AU480) in feline serum samples. METHODS: Analytical precision was determined by within-run and between-run testing using pooled serum and commercial quality control materials. Agreement between analyzers for 16 biochemical analytes was examined using Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis using 57 feline serum samples. Total observed error (TEobs) was assessed against published allowable total error (TEₐ) criteria to evaluate analytical quality. RESULTS: Acceptable precision was observed for the majority of analytes, although TBIL exhibited increased variability at lower concentration ranges. Regression analysis demonstrated strong linear associations for most analytes (r = 0.82-0.99). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that 94.4-98.0% of paired results were within the limits of agreement. Comparison of TEobs with TEₐ limits identified acceptable analytical performance for 10 analytes, whereas BUN, CA, CREA, TBIL, and TP exceeded allowable limits. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Vcheck C10 demonstrated reliable analytical precision and favorable correlation with the reference analyzer for most analytes in feline serum, supporting its utility in point-of-care testing in primary practice. Nevertheless, analyte-specific limitations in agreement with the wet chemistry reference method were identified for certain analytes, emphasizing method-consistent interpretation and the use of analyzer-specific reference intervals in clinical decision-making and longitudinal monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: