ArticlePloS one2014
Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCharacterisation of anticoagulant control is fundamental to investigations of its association with clinical outcome. Anticoagulant control depends on several factors. This paper aims to illustrate the implications of different methods for measuring and analysing anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.
methodsInternational normalised ratio (INR) data collected during the 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial were analysed. We considered the influence of: 3 different target INR ranges; anticoagulant control expressed as the proportion of INR readings (PoR) vs. anticoagulant control follow-up time (PoT); 3 ways of describing the profile of anticoagulant control over time.
resultsDifferent target INR ranges dramatically influenced derived measures of anticoagulant control; the PoT within the target range varied from 88% for the widest to 28% for narrowest range. Overall distributions of PoR and PoT observations were similar but differed by up to ± 20% for individuals; PoT exceeded PoR when control was good but was less than PoR when control was poor. Classifying PoT outside the target range showed that widely varying combinations of PoT too high and too low are possible across individuals.
conclusionsResearchers' choices about methods for measuring and quantifying anticoagulant control markedly influence the values derived from INR readings. The use of different methods across studies makes it difficult or impossible to compare findings and to establish an evidence base for clinical practice. Methods for quantifying anticoagulant control should be standardised.
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.