Why the study?
Does the Owren PT method provide more clinically acceptable INR results compared to the Quick PT method in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy?
Population
316 patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (179 tested with Quick PT, 137 tested with Owren PT)
Comparison
Owren PT method for measuring Prothrombin Time… vs Quick PT method for measuring Prothrombin Time…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Owren PT may yield more clinically acceptable INR results than Quick PT; cross-sectional data leaves open practice change.
Does the Owren PT method provide more clinically acceptable INR results compared to the Quick PT method in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy?
The Owren PT method provides more clinically acceptable and consistent INR results than the Quick PT method for monitoring oral anticoagulant therapy.
Juha Horsti (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: