These authors contributed equally to this work.
Partnership on Rotational ViscoElastic Test Standardization (PROVETS): Evidence-based guidelines on rotational viscoelastic assays in veterinary medicine
Article first published online: 14 JAN 2014
© Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society 2014
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care
Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 1–22, January/February 2014
How to Cite
Goggs, R., Brainard, B., de Laforcade, A. M., Flatland, B., Hanel, R., McMichael, M. and Wiinberg, B. (2014), Partnership on Rotational ViscoElastic Test Standardization (PROVETS): Evidence-based guidelines on rotational viscoelastic assays in veterinary medicine. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 24: 1–22. doi: 10.1111/vec.12144
The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
- Issue published online: 28 JAN 2014
- Article first published online: 14 JAN 2014
- Manuscript Accepted: 15 NOV 2013
- Manuscript Received: 8 NOV 2013
To systematically examine the evidence relating to the performance of rotational viscoelastic testing in companion animals, to develop assay guidelines, and to identify knowledge gaps.
Multiple questions were considered within 5 parent domains, specifically system comparability, sample handling, assay activation and test protocol, definitions and data reporting, and nonstandard assays. Standardized, systematic evaluation of the literature was performed. Relevant articles were categorized according to level of evidence and assessed for quality. Consensus was developed regarding conclusions for application of concepts to clinical practice.
Academic and referral veterinary medical centers.
Databases searched included Medline, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux abstracts, and Google Scholar. Worksheets were prepared evaluating 28 questions across the 5 domains and generating 84 assay guidelines.
Evidence-based guidelines for the performance of thromboelastography in companion animals were generated through this process. Some of these guidelines are well supported while others will benefit from additional evidence. Many knowledge gaps were identified and future work should be directed to address these gaps and to objectively evaluate the impact of these guidelines on assay comparability within and between centers.