OBJECTIVE: To find out how accurately two point of care test systems--CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC (RapidPointCoag)--display international normalised ratios (INRs). DESIGN: Comparison of the INRs from the two systems with a "true" INR on a conventional manual test from the same sample of blood. SETTING: 10 European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation centres. PARTICIPANTS: 600 patients on long term dosage of warfarin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparable results between the different methods. RESULTS: The mean displayed INR differed by 21.3% between the two point of care test monitoring systems. The INR on one system was 15.2% higher, on average, than the true INR, but on the other system the INR was 7.1% lower. The percentage difference between the mean displayed INR and the true INR at individual centres varied considerably with both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Improved international sensitivity index calibration of point of care test monitors by their manufacturers is needed, and better methods of quality control of individual instruments by their users are also needed.
OBJECTIVE: To find out how accurately two point of care test systems--CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC (RapidPointCoag)--display international normalised ratios (INRs). DESIGN: Comparison of the INRs from the two systems with a "true" INR on a conventional manual test from the same sample of blood. SETTING: 10 European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation centres. PARTICIPANTS: 600 patients on long term dosage of warfarin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparable results between the different methods. RESULTS: The mean displayed INR differed by 21.3% between the two point of care test monitoring systems. The INR on one system was 15.2% higher, on average, than the true INR, but on the other system the INR was 7.1% lower. The percentage difference between the mean displayed INR and the true INR at individual centres varied considerably with both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Improved international sensitivity index calibration of point of care test monitors by their manufacturers is needed, and better methods of quality control of individual instruments by their users are also needed.
Authors: Leon Poller; Michelle Keown; Nikhil Chauhan; Anton M H P van den Besselaar; Joyce Meeuwisse-Braun; Armando Tripodi; Mariagrazia Clerici; Jørgen Jespersen Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: L Poller; M Keown; N Chauhan; A M H P van Den Besselaar; A Tripodi; J Jespersen; C Shiach; M H Horellou; D Dias; N Egberg; J A Iriarte; I Kontopoulou-Griva; B Otridge Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: L Poller; M Keown; N Chauhan; A M H P van den Besselaar; A Tripodi; C Shiach; J Jespersen Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Leon Poller; Michelle Keown; Nikhil Chauhan; Anton M H P van den Besselaar; Armando Tripodi; Caroline Shiach; Jorgen Jespersen Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: M E Cromheecke; M Levi; L P Colly; B J de Mol; M H Prins; B A Hutten; R Mak; K C Keyzers; H R Büller Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-07-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Walter Ageno; Alexander S Gallus; Ann Wittkowsky; Mark Crowther; Elaine M Hylek; Gualtiero Palareti Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Lars G Hemkens; Kristian M Hilden; Stephan Hartschen; Thomas Kaiser; Ulrike Didjurgeit; Roland Hansen; Ralf Bender; Peter T Sawicki Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2007-10-26 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Carolina Borges Garcia; Luciana Parente Costa Seguro; Luiz Augusto Perandini; Ana Lúcia de Sá Pinto; Fernanda Rodrigues Lima; Carlos Eduardo Negrão; Eloisa Bonfa; Eduardo Ferreira Borba Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 2.631