Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828232›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2026

Challenges in PT/INR harmonization across the total testing process.

Jia-Min Zou, Tian-Ji Li, Qi Liu, Yong-Gang Hu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jia-Min ZouDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Luzhou Mental Hospital, Luzhou, China.
Tian-Ji LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Luzhou Mental Hospital, Luzhou, China.
Qi LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, People's Hospital of Naxi District, Luzhou, China.
Yong-Gang HuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, People's Hospital of Naxi District, Luzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The International Normalized Ratio (INR), introduced by the World Health Organization in 1983, is central to vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy monitoring. However, thromboplastin standardization alone does not ensure harmonized prothrombin time (PT)/INR results. Residual variability arises throughout the testing continuum. In this narrative review, we examine the principal sources of residual PT/INR non-equivalence across the "vein-to-report" pathway. Particular attention is devoted to clinical settings in which the assumptions underlying INR calibration are only partially satisfied, including advanced liver disease and exposure to direct oral anticoagulants. We further discuss postanalytical factors, such as determination of the mean normal prothrombin time and system-specific verification of the International Sensitivity Index, as well as quality assurance strategies, including the use of commutable external quality assessment materials and patient-based real-time quality control. Prothrombin time/INR harmonization requires integrating preanalytical practices, recognizing reagent-instrument dependencies, and quality strategies reflecting real-world testing conditions.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsInternational Normalized RatioProthrombin TimeCalibrationHumansQuality ControlVitamin KAnticoagulantsVitamin Kdirect oral anticoagulantsharmonizationinternational normalized ratioprothrombin timestandardization

Identifiers

PMID42828232
PMCPMC13631955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.