Observational studyPloS one2018
Thrombolysis in stroke patients: Comparability of point-of-care versus central laboratory international normalized ratio.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision-Making Process for the Management of Acute Stroke in Patients on Oral Anticoagulant: From Guidelines to Clinical Routine.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Differences in Body Composition among Patientsafter Hemorrhagic and Ischemic Stroke.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Mobile Stroke Units: Bringing Treatment to the Patient.Current treatment options in neurology · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn acute stroke patients, thrombolysis is one gold standard therapy option within the first four hours after the ischemic event. A contraindication for thrombolysis is an International Normalized Ratio (INR) value >1.7. Since time is brain, rapid and reliable INR results are fundamental. Aim was to compare INR values determined by central laboratory (CL) analyzer and Point-of-Care Testing(POCT)-device and to evaluate the quality of POCT performance in cases of potential therapeutic thrombolysis at a certified stroke unit.
methodsIn 153 patients INR measurements using POCT-devices (HEMOCHRON Signature Elite®) were compared to INR measurements (BCS®XP) performed at the central laboratory. Outlier evaluation was performed regarding the critical thrombolysis cut-off.
resultsOverall, we demonstrated a significant correlation (r = 0.809, p<0.0001) between both measurement methods. Mean value of the absolute difference between CL-INR and POCT-INR measurements was 0.23. In 95.4% of these cases, no differences regarding the critical cut-off (INR 1.7) were observed. POCT-INR values tended to be higher than the CL-INR values (p = 0.01). In 4.6% cases, a different value regarding thrombolysis cut-off was found. All patients were >75 years.
conclusionsPOCT-INR measurements based on our POCT concept are suitable to determine INR values in critical stroke patients. Nevertheless, outlier evaluation is mandatory.
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.