ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2026
Variability of PT-INR values measured by point of care devices INRatio/INRatio 2 and CoaguChek XS and standard laboratory method. A cross-sectional study.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Various point-of-care (POC) devices are available for measurement of PT-INR with whole blood in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). However, the variability in values measured with various POC devices and traditional plasma-based laboratory measurement in clinical practice has yet to be clarified. Material and methods: PT-INR values measured with the same blood sample by POC devices of INRatio/INRatio 2 (INRatio) and the CoaguChek XS portable INR monitor (CoaguChek) were compared with those measured with traditional plasma-based laboratory measurement (lab-INR) in 1,347 measurements from 393 patients. The difference between the PT-INR values obtained from Lab-INR and POC devicees were expressed as Δ. To quantify the relationships among values obtained by various methods, regression analysis and the Bland-Altman method were applied. Results: PT-INR values measured with INRatio were higher than lab-INR with Δ = -0.33 ±0.38 (mean ± SD; 95% CI: -0.31 - -0.35). Pearson's correlation coefficient between the values measured with INRatio and lab-INR was 0.784. The PT-INR values measured with CoaguChek were not different from lab-INR with Δ -0.08 ±0.15 (mean ± SD; 95% CI: -0.07 - -0.09). The correlation between the value obtained with CoaguChek XS and lab PT-INR was high with Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.951. Conclusions: Even with the blood obtained from the same patients treated with the same dose of warfarin, the PT-INR values measured with INRatio were higher than traditional laboratory measurements. The apparent "quality of warfarin control" is influenced by the methods of PT-INR measurements.
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.