Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26198584›Full record

ArticleJournal of community health2015

Trends in Warfarin Monitoring Practices Among New York Medicare Beneficiaries, 2006-2011.

Darren M Triller, Susan Wymer, Patrick D Meek, Elaine M Hylek, Jack E Ansell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Darren M TrillerHealthcare Quality Improvement, IPRO, 20 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Albany, NY, 12211, USA, Darren.triller@area-i.hcqis.org.
Susan Wymer
Patrick D Meek
Elaine M Hylek
Jack E Ansell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anticoagulation with warfarin requires frequent evaluation of the international normalized ratio (INR), and less invasive testing devices are available for use by clinicians at the point-of-care (POC) and by patients who self-test (PST). Despite commercial availability and positive results of published studies, evidence suggests that adoption of less invasive (POC/PST) testing in the United States is slow. Considering the equivalence of results and logistical advantages of POC/PST testing, slow uptake may indicate a gap in quality of care warranting evaluation and possibly intervention. This study used Medicare fee for service claims data to explore the uptake of POC/PST INR monitoring across New York State over a 6 year time frame (2006-11), with additional analyses based on beneficiary age, sex, race and ethnicity and income by county. In 2006, only 28.3% of 103,410 analyzable beneficiaries presumed to be chronic warfarin users based on INR testing patterns were monitored by POC/PST, and increased to only 37.6% by 2011. Utilization of POC/PST testing varied widely by county (baseline range 1.2-89.4%), and uptake of these testing modalities in New York State was significantly lower among the very elderly, women, and ethnic minorities. We hypothesize that poor penetration of these less invasive INR testing modalities into highly populated New York City and barriers to POC utilization in long term care facilities may account for a portion of the variability in INR testing patterns observed in this study. However, additional research is needed to further explore whether disparities in warfarin monitoring practices exist.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAnticoagulantsDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansInsurance Claim ReviewInternational Normalized RatioMaleMedicareMiddle AgedNew YorkNew York CityAnticoagulantsWarfarin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.