What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the Quick and Owren prothrombin time methods for harmonization of International Normalized Ratio results.

Has the Quick or the Owren prothrombin time method the advantage in harmonization for the International Normalized Ratio system?

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Randomized trial compares two PT methods, revealing Owren method's superiority for INR calibration.

To compare the Quick and Owren prothrombin time methods for harmonization of International Normalized Ratio results.
Measured PT using ACL 7000 analyser with three reagents each for Quick and Owren methods
Estimated International Sensitivity Index (ISI) for reagents using calibrator sets
Evaluated analytical bias and variation using five different normal plasmas at INR = 1.0 and 2.5
Owren method's ISI coefficient of variation was 2.40% compared to 12.85% for Quick
Absolute error for Owren was 0.00 INR at 1.0 and 0.04 INR at 2.5, compared to Quick's 0.01 INR and 0.16 INR
Owren showed advantages in ISI calibration and analytical quality over Quick method

Juha Horsti (2002) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark