ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of point-of-care INR testing against standard laboratory methods in a Malaysian primary healthcare setting.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable INR monitoring is crucial for patients on warfarin to prevent thrombotic or bleeding events. This study evaluated the accuracy of the Wondfo POCT device compared to standard laboratory methods (Stago STA-R Max3 and ACL TOP 300) in a primary healthcare setting. The goal was to assess whether this point-of-care testing can provide timely and reliable results for better patient management in community-based clinics. In a prospective, cross-sectional study, samples from 74 patients on warfarin and 20 healthy controls were analyzed. Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, Deming regression, and CLSI POCT14-A criteria. Deming regression demonstrated strong linear correlations across all comparisons (r > 0.92, R² > 0.84). The mean bias for Wondfo (capillary) remained within CLSI POCT14-A agreement limits for all INR ranges when compared with both Stago and ACL TOP 300 platforms (all SE < AE). A very strong correlation was also observed between Wondfo venous and capillary results (r = 0.954, R² = 0.908). The study concludes that the Wondfo POCT device demonstrates acceptable agreement with standard laboratory testing within therapeutic ranges, thereby offering a viable alternative. It is a reliable and practical solution for rapid, decentralized INR monitoring, particularly in outpatient care, and can potentially improve patient management and safety.
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.