ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2017
Preclinical evaluation of point-of-care prothrombin time as a biomarker test to guide prothrombin replacement therapy in coagulopathic bleeding.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting the likelihood of undergoing surgical intervention in ruptured corpus luteum.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Preclinical evaluation of point-of-care prothrombin time as a biomarker test to guide prothrombin replacement therapy in coagulopathic bleeding.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2017Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemorrhage is still a common cause of death in trauma. Central lab measured prothrombin time (lab PT) is predictive of low prothrombin concentration and clinical outcome in trauma patients, however, treatment guidance is limited by slow turnaround times. Here, we have preclinically evaluated the potential of a point-of-care prothrombin time test (POC PT) as a faster alternative to identify patients with low prothrombin concentration.
methodsHuman whole blood was serially diluted and prothrombin time measured by POC PT (CoaguChek XS Pro, Roche) and lab PT. Recombinant human prothrombin (MEDI8111) was added to human whole blood with or without depletion of prothrombin by pretreatment with prothrombin neutralizing antibodies.
resultsThere was no observable difference in the sensitivity of either test to dilution at blood volumes of 60-100%. At blood volumes of ≤55% (equivalent to 47 mg/L prothrombin), PT sharply increased, with greater dilutional sensitivity observed in the POC test. Both tests were insensitive to prothrombin up to 194 mg/L added MEDI8111 (equivalent to 328 mg/L prothrombin versus endogenous concentration of 129 mg/L). Depletion of endogenous prothrombin inversely correlated with an increase in PT which returned to baseline following addition of 97 mg/L MEDI8111 or above. Both assays correlated well above 48.5 mg/L added MEDI8111 (65.9 mg/L prothrombin).
conclusionsOur data supports that POC PT tests, such as the CoaguChek XS Pro, are fit for purpose to confirm a coagulopathic threshold for prothrombin and provide a fast, simple, and mobile method to guide MEDI8111 therapy in bleeding trauma patients.
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.