ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020
Determination of the cut-off prothrombin time to estimate plasma rivaroxaban overdose status.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nomogram for predicting bleeding events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients receiving rivaroxaban: A retrospective study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Affects Coagulation System of Obese Patients.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory monitoring of rivaroxaban (RIV) is required under certain conditions. Mass spectrometry and anti-factor Xa assays are the recommended methods, which may not be readily available. Prothrombin time (PT) is the most widely used and simple coagulation assay. To set the cutoff PT and international normalized ratio (INR) to estimate RIV overdose status. RIV-spiked pooled normal plasma was used. PT test was performed using a CA-7000 coagulometer and Thromborel S reagent. The precise measurement of RIV concentration at the cut-off PT was evaluated according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) EP12-A2 guideline. The RIV concentration at 275 ng/mL was analyzed using 40 replicates. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the cutoff value for the determination of RIV potential overdose status. An imprecision estimation of PT was conducted with 220.00 ng/mL, 247.50 ng/mL, 261.25 ng/mL, 288.75 ng/mL, 302.50 ng/mL and 330.00 ng/mL concentrations of RIV in 60 replicates. According to the ROC analysis, the cutoff clotting times and INR values to determine the overdose status of RIV were 13.45 s and 1.39. With these values, there was a 92.6% probability that plasma samples with RIV concentration ≤ 247.50 ng/mL yielded consistently negative (on-therapy dose) results, and those with ≥ 302.50 ng/mL yield consistent positive (potential overdose) results using our PT assay. PT with a reliable cutoff clotting time and INR can be used to determine the potential overdose status of RIV to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment by controlling the dose.
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.