Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2014
Cluster randomized controlled trial of a simple warfarin maintenance dosing algorithm versus usual care among primary care practices.
Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Warfarin Administration Time on Anticoagulation Stability (INRange): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2020Trial
- Review
- Quality of warfarin management in primary care: Determining the stability of international normalized ratios using a nationally representative prospective cohort.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Do specialty anticoagulation clinics really outperform primary care at INR management?Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2014Article
- Anticoagulation Management of Atrial Fibrillation: The Relationship of Prevailing Adherence to a Dose Protocol and Recall Schedule on TTR in Primary Care.Health services research and managerial epidemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many patients using warfarin are being managed in primary care and typically achieve a lower time in therapeutic range (TTR) for the international normalized ratio (INR) than patients in specialized care. A simple warfarin maintenance dosing tool could assist primary care physicians with improving TTR. We tested whether a simple warfarin maintenance dosing algorithm can improve TTR compared with usual care among Canadian primary care physicians. Primary care practices managing warfarin therapy without an anticoagulation clinic, computer decision support system or patient self-management tools enrolled 10-30 patients with target INR range 2-3. Practices were randomized to manage warfarin maintenance with the algorithm, or as usual in 2009-2010. Primary outcome was the mean individual patient TTR, and was compared between groups with adjustment for clustering within practices. There were 13 practices randomized to the Algorithm and 15 practices to Control, enrolling 240 and 297 patients respectively, with a mean follow-up of 280 days. Mean (standard deviation; SD) TTR before the study was comparable between groups [68 % (SD 26) for usual care vs. 70 % (SD 27) for the algorithm; p = 0.49]. Dosing decisions during the study in the algorithm group were more often in agreement with the algorithm's recommendations than with usual care (81 vs. 91 %; p < 0.0001). Mean study TTR of the algorithm group was not superior to usual care: [72.1 (SE 1.7) vs. 71.4 % (SE 1.5) respectively; p = 0.73]. The simple warfarin maintenance dosing algorithm did not improve TTR compared with usual care among Canadian primary care practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.