ArticlePloS one2015
Center-Related Determinants of VKA Anticoagulation Quality: A Prospective, Multicenter Evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy.Blood advances · 2018Guideline
- Differences in the quality of oral anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists in German GP practices - results of the cluster-randomized PICANT trial (Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment).BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- Implementing anticoagulation stewardship: the use of a dedicated mobile phone 'app' in the experience of the Italian Federation of Anticoagulation linics (FCSA).Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Time in therapeutic range as predictor of early left-ventricular thrombosis resolution: a retrospective cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation elderly patients maintained on VKAs' treatment compared to patients switched to DOACs: results from the STARTInternal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of management models on thromboembolic and bleeding rates in anticoagulated patients: an ecological study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Optimizing quality care for the oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2018Review
- Direct oral anticoagulants: what can we learn?Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCenter-specific TTR (c-TTR) is a measure reporting the mean patient TTR within an anticoagulation clinic describing the quality of anticoagulant monitoring offered by that clinic. c-TTR has a considerable between-center variation, but its determinants are poorly understood.
objectivesWe aimed at evaluating which clinical, procedural or laboratory factors could be associated with c-TTR variability in a multicenter, observational cross-sectional study over a five-year period. PATIENTS/
methodsData from 832,204 individual patients followed for VKA therapy in 292 Centers affiliated with the Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics (FCSA) were analyzed. c-TTR was computed based on the TTR of patients followed at each Center, and a mixed linear regression model was used for a predefined set of explanatory variables.
resultsThe Center next-visit interval ratio (the mean number of days after a visit with an INR outside the therapeutic range, divided by the days after a visit with an INR within the therapeutic range), the Center mean patient INR and the Center laboratory performance at EQA proficiency testing were the only variables that were independently associated with c-TTR (β-coefficients -17.32, 9.67, and -0.11, respectively; r2 = 0.635).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that c-TTR associates with proactive strategies aimed at keeping patients very close to their target INR with a prompt re-evaluation of those patients with under- or over-therapeutic INR.
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.