ArticleClinical hemorheology and microcirculation2021
Performance comparison of the PFA-200 and Anysis-200: Assessment of bleeding risk screening in cardiology patients.
Article in Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of real-time PCR assays for human papillomavirus using urine samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Harmonizing platelet function analyzer testing and reporting in a large laboratory network.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of platelet function is important in the management of patients who are subject to operation as well as at potential risk of hemorrhagic complications.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate a new platelet assays (Anysis-Epinephrine, Anysis-ADP) and to compare them with PFA-200 in cardiology visiting patients and inpatients.
methodsCitrated blood samples were collected from 184 patients for ADP test and 163 patients for EPI test, who visited Korea University Guro Hospital with written consent. The PFA-200 assay gives a test result the closure time (CT) until the blood flow rate decreases to 10% of the initial value, whereas Anysis-200 assay does a blood flow migration distance (MD) until blood flow completely stops. According to the results of PFA closure time (CT), the tested samples were classified as either negative control or positive group. The measurements were simultaneously conducted with two devices and compared.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 C/EPI kit in comparison to PFA-200 C/EPI kit was 87.5% and 85.7%, respectively. Regarding C/ADP kit, the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 was 96.9% and 87.5%, respectively. In addition, the sums of sensitivity and specificity are greater than 150% for both of EPI and ADP. Also, it was found that likelihood ratio and odd ratio for each assay provide useful additional information. Since the Cohen's kappa coefficients value between the two devices was relatively high, the equivalence between the two devices was confirmed.
conclusionsAnysis-200, a novel platelet function analyzer has showed excellent agreements with PFA-200 with high agreement rates and precision. Anysis-200 assay would be useful in assessing bleeding risk management as well as abnormal platelet reactivity at point of care.
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.