Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374969›Full record

ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis2018

Prospective Comparison of Point-of-Care Device and Standard Analyzer for Monitoring of International Normalized Ratio in Outpatient Oral Anticoagulant Clinic.

Bushra Moiz, Anila Rashid, Muhammad Hasan, Lena Jafri, Ahmed Raheem

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Management of Outpatient Warfarin Therapy amid COVID-19 Pandemic: A Practical Guide.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2020
    Review
  3. Reliability of International Normalized Ratio Results in the CoaguChek Pro II System in a Clinical Setting.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bushra Moiz1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0777-3690
Anila Rashid1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Hasan1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Lena Jafri1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Ahmed Raheem1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Aga Khan University Hospital · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometers are increasingly being used in the hospital setting and patients' self-testing. We determined the agreement of prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) results by POCT coagulometer and laboratory instrument through a comparative analysis and investigated whether the results of POCT coagulometer can reliably be used without being confirmed by standard laboratory analyzer. A total of 200 INR measurements by POCT coagulometer (CoaguChek XS Pro) and laboratory analyzer (Sysmex CS2000i) were compared using Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. Agreement of the INR measurement was further analyzed in relation to dosing decision. The correlation of INR measurements between CoaguChek XS Pro and Sysmex CS2000i was excellent (correlation coefficient = 0.973). The overall mean difference was 0.21 INR ± 0.32 (range: 1.7-0.44). The mean difference was found to get increased as INR results increased and was 0.09 in the subtherapeutic range (≤1.9 INR), 0.29 INR in the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0 INR), while 0.4 INR in the supratherapeutic range (>3.0 INR). The overall agreement was excellent (κ = 0.916) and overall 11 (5.5%) of 200 INR measurements showed a difference in dosing decision between the 2 instruments. The positive bias of POC-INR is evident in the supratherapeutic range which could affect the dosing decision requiring confirmation with the laboratory INR measurement.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdolescentAdultAnticoagulantsFemaleHumansInternational Normalized RatioMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPoint-of-Care SystemsWarfarinYoung AdultAnticoagulantsWarfarinanticoagulationinternational normalized ratiopoint-of-care testing devicewarfarin

Identifiers

PMID29374969
PMCPMC6714735
OpenAlexW2786048249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.