Skip to content

Analytical validation of ImMScan assays

A rapid test is only worth what its results are worth against an established method. Here are ours, parameter by parameter.

method evaluations
44method evaluations
clinical samples
1,975clinical samples
parameters covered
40parameters covered
median agreement
96 %median agreement

How these figures are obtained

Each evaluation compares the ImMScan assay against an already established method, on the same samples, on the same day, by the same operator. Samples are fresh clinical specimens from veterinary practices and farms, never dilutions prepared for the occasion.

Depending on the parameter, the comparison method is gene amplification for infectious antigens, a laboratory immunoassay analyzer for hormones, or a recognised quantitative rapid test. The figure reported is total agreement: the share of samples classified the same way by both methods, positives and negatives together.

For parameters whose interpretation is continuous rather than binary, such as equine ACTH, the correlation coefficient is reported instead.

Result by parameter

ParameterSpeciesSamplesComparison methodAgreementGuide
cCRPDog35Reference veterinary rapid test97 %Read
cCRPDog50Reference veterinary rapid test96 %Read
cPLDog43Reference veterinary rapid test95 %Read
cPLDog50Reference veterinary rapid test96 %Read
ccTnIDog50Reference veterinary rapid test96 %
cNT-proBNPDog25Reference veterinary rapid test92 %Read
cProgDog46Reference veterinary rapid test98 %Read
TSHDog30Reference veterinary rapid test93.3 %Read
ANA AcDog45Reference veterinary rapid test96.8 %Read
EHR AcDog45Reference veterinary rapid test97.7 %Read
LYM AcDog45Reference veterinary rapid test97.7 %Read
CDV/CPV/ICH AcDog50Reference veterinary rapid test98 %
CDV AgDog40PCR95 %
CPV AgDog40PCR95 %
CCV AgDog40PCR100 %
CPV/CCV AgDog40PCR95 %
fPLCat40Reference veterinary rapid test98 %Read
fSAACat81Reference veterinary rapid test96 %
fNT-proBNPCat25Reference veterinary rapid test92 %Read
fTT4Cat40Reference veterinary rapid test95 %Read
FeLV AgCat50PCR98 %
FIV AcCat50PCR98 %
FPV AgCat40PCR95 %
FCoV AgCat40PCR98 %
FCoV AcCat45Reference veterinary rapid test96 %
FCAV AgCat40PCR95 %
FHV/FCAV/FPV AcCat60Reference veterinary rapid test97 %
Chlamydia AgCat50PCR94 %
SDMADog and cat50Reference veterinary rapid test97.5 %Read
SDMADog and cat50Reference veterinary rapid test97.5 %Read
T4 totaleDog and cat50Reference veterinary rapid test92 %Read
T4 totaleDog and cat50Reference veterinary rapid test84 – 88 %Read
CortisolDog and cat45Reference veterinary rapid test98 %
D-DimèresDog and cat45Reference veterinary rapid test95.5 %
Vitamine D3Dog and cat25Laboratory analyzer96 %
Giardia AgDog and cat55Reference veterinary rapid test96 %
Hp AgDog and cat40PCR95 %
Mycoplasma AgDog and cat50PCR96 %
eACTHHorse45Laboratory analyzerr = 1Read
eINSHorse40Laboratory analyzer93 %Read
eSAAHorse50Reference veterinary rapid test96 %Read
eProgHorse50Reference veterinary rapid test98 %Read
Foal IgGHorse45Reference veterinary rapid test96 %Read
Bovine PAGCattle50Reference veterinary rapid test96 %Read

What this table does not say

High agreement measures how two methods concur, not clinical truth. Two assays can agree and be wrong together, and a single disagreement on a sample sitting near the cut-off does not carry the weight of a clear-cut one.

Sample sizes range from 25 to 81 per parameter. That is enough to situate a method, not to establish a population reference interval.

Finally, a cut-off belongs to the method that produced it. The interpretation values to use are those in the instructions for the test you run, not those of another analyzer, even for a parameter bearing the same name.

A question about a specific parameter?

Our technicians answer on the substance, with the data from the relevant evaluation.

Ask the question