Key result
Point-of-care INR testing using CoaguChek S and XS showed good correlation with hospital laboratory monitoring (r = 0.91), with 87% of paired measurements within 0.5 INR units of each other.
Why the study?
Does point-of-care INR testing accurately reflect hospital laboratory INR measurements in patients on oral anticoagulation?
Population
151 patients managed by an anticoagulation management service
Comparison
Home point-of-care INR testing using CoaguChek S… vs Hospital clinical laboratory INR measurements
Design
RCT, Randomized, crossover design
Follow-up
6 months per arm
Authors
Loading...
Supports point-of-care INR testing as reliable alternative to laboratory monitoring; confirms accuracy in RCT of anticoagulated patients.
RCT (n=151)
Crossover
No
Does point-of-care INR testing accurately reflect hospital laboratory INR measurements in patients on oral anticoagulation?
Effect estimate: r = 0.91
Point-of-care INR testing is a reliable alternative to hospital laboratory monitoring, particularly for INR values between 2.0 and 3.5, though external quality control remains important.
Ryan et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Oral anticoagulation monitoring (n=151). Point-of-care INR testing (CoaguChek S and XS) vs. Hospital laboratory monitoring was evaluated on Correlation of POC measured INR with laboratory determined value (r = 0.91). Point-of-care INR testing using CoaguChek S and XS showed good correlation with hospital laboratory monitoring (r = 0.91), with 87% of paired measurements within 0.5 INR units of each other.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: