ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2021
Evaluation of point-of-care International Normalized Ratio in sickle cell disease.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) International Normalized Ratio (INR) measurement provides efficient monitoring of warfarin therapy; however, its reliability may be affected in patients with anemia, such as those with sickle cell disease (SCD).
objectivesTo evaluate the correlation of POC-INR to clinical laboratory INR (CL-INR) in SCD and use of a correction factor. PATIENT/
methodsIn this retrospective study, the accuracy of POC-INR compared to CL-INR was evaluated in a cohort of patients with SCD and in a non-SCD Black cohort.
resultsDespite the difference in anemia, the SCD cohort showed a similar percentage of in-range POC-INR values as observed in the non-SCD cohort (37% vs 42%). The SCD cohort was randomly divided to form discovery and validation cohorts. In the discovery cohort, 86% of POC-INRs were in range when the POC-INRs were ˂4.0, but only 24% were in range if POC-INRs were ≥4.0. A linear regression of CL-INR versus POC-INR for POC-INR values ≥4.0 yielded a coefficient of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.75); Multiplying POC-INR by this correction factor, rounded to 0.7 for ease of use in clinical practice, improved the proportion of in-range POC-INR values ≥4.0 from 24% to 100% in the SCD discovery cohort and from 19% to 95% in the SCD validation cohort. Similar findings applied to analyses of the non-SCD cohort.
conclusionsPOC-INR and CL-INR in patients with SCD are similar when POC-INR is <4.0, and the accuracy of POC-INR values ≥4.0 can be improved by applying an institution-specific correction factor.
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.