ArticleIrish journal of medical science
Primary care anticoagulant management using near patient testing.
Article in Irish journal of medical science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndications for anticoagulant treatment are increasing and new approaches to anticoagulant services require a shift from hospital to primary care.
aimTo pragmatically test the validity and effectiveness of primary care anticoagulant management using near patient testing.
methodsTwelve CoaguCheck monitors were supplied to 16 rural practices that had previously provided supervision of anticoagulant therapy. Practices were required to record data for eligible patients from September 1998 to April 1999 and to forward one blood sample per week to the regional hospital laboratory for parallel testing.
resultsNine practices returned data on 122 patients. Indications for anticoagulation Included atrial fibrillation (n = 56), valve replacement (n = 12) and deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolus (n=12). Regression of the mean of 185 paired readings against their difference confirmed the validity of the CoaguCheck monitor (r2 = 0.00 [95% CI -0.38 to 0.38]). There were 692 International Normalised Ratio (INR) tests performed representing an average of 5.7 tests per patient. The desired therapeutic range was provided for 609 (88%) of these tests; 294 (48.3%) were within the desired therapeutic range. Results differed significantly between practices.
conclusionsThis study confirmed the validity of anticoagulant management using the CoaguCheck monitor in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12760461What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.