Studies comparing a new method with an established method, to assess whether the new measurements are comparable with existing ones, are frequently conducted in clinical pathology laboratories. Assessment usually involves statistical analysis of paired results from the 2 methods to objectively investigate sources of analytical error (total, random, and systematic). In this review article, the types of errors that can be assessed in performing this task are described, and a general protocol for comparison of quantitative methods is recommended. The typical protocol has 9 steps: 1) state the purpose of the experiment, 2) establish a theoretical basis for the method comparison experiment, 3) become familiar with the new method, 4) obtain estimates of random error for both methods, 5) estimate the number of samples to be included in the method comparison experiment, 6) define acceptable difference between the 2 methods, 7) measure the patient samples, 8) analyze the data and 9) judge acceptability. The protocol includes the essential investigations and decisions needed to objectively assess the overall analytical performance of a new method compared to a reference or established method. The choice of statistical methods and recommendations of decision criteria within the stages are discussed. Use of the protocol for decision‐making is exemplified by the comparison of 2 methods for measuring alanine aminotransferase activity in serum from dogs. Finally, a protocol for comparing simpler semiquantitative methods with established methods that measure on a continuous scale is suggested.

Background: There is considerable variation in the coagulation profile of dogs with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), making it difficult to assess overall hemostatic function. Objectives: To characterize the overall hemostatic state in dogs with DIC, by use of tissue factor-activated thromboelastography (TF-TEG), and to determine whether there is an association between hemostasis and outcome. Animals: 50 dogs with DIC. Methods: Dogs admitted to the intensive care units, with an underlying disease known to predispose to DIC, were prospectively assessed with TF-TEG. Citrated blood samples were collected daily during hospitalization and an extended coagulation panel and TF-TEG were performed. Diagnosis of DIC was based on expert opinion. Results: Hemostatic dysfunction was observed on the TF-TEG profile in 33/50 of the dogs, of which 22/50 were hypercoagulable and 11/50 were hypocoagulable based on the TF-TEG G value alone. There were significant differences in k, α, and MA values (P < .0001) among hypo-, normo-, and hypercoagulable dogs. There was a significant difference in case fatality rate between hypo- (64%) and hypercoagulable (32%) dogs (relative risk = 2.38; P= .04). Dogs that died had significantly lower antithrombin activity (P= .03) and higher d-dimer concentration (P= .03) than survivors. Conclusions: The most common overall hemostatic abnormality in dogs diagnosed with DIC was hypercoagulability, and there was significant difference in survival between hyper- and hypocoagulable dogs. The results suggest TF-TEG is valuable in the assessment of hemostatic function in dogs diagnosed with DIC.

Angiostrongylus vasorum has been recognised as a cause of respiratory and circulatory distress among dogs in southwestern France for more than a decade, and the nematode now appears to be of increasing importance in the British Isles and Denmark. The aim of this review is to give a concise account of present knowledge of this intriguing parasitosis.