Why the study?
Does the use of specific numbers and types of ECAA calibrant plasmas improve the accuracy of INR derivation using the PT/INR Line method?
Does the use of specific numbers and types of ECAA calibrant plasmas improve the accuracy of INR derivation using the PT/INR Line method?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Using 5 ECAA calibrant plasmas with wide-ranging INR values optimizes the accuracy of local INR derivation via the PT/INR Line method without requiring conventional WHO calibrations.
The prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR) Line method based on 5 certified European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA) plasmas provides reliable local INR values without conventional World Health Organization international sensitivity index calibrations. The present study investigated the use of different numbers and types of ECAA calibrant plasmas to derive accurate PT/INR Lines and reliable INR values. The numbers ranged from 3 to 10 plasmas in a set with normal or abnormal samples. Sets were selected, and sampling was repeated 1,000 times for each center to derive PT/INR Lines. The lines were selected randomly or from clusters. The INR values of 5 independent "validation" plasmas were compared before and after correction. In 56 calibrations, 5 ECAA plasmas gave better results than did fewer plasmas. Plasmas with wide-ranging INR values gave better results than randomly selected sets, and including a normal plasma was not essential. The INR deviations of validation plasmas from certified values were reduced with sets of human, bovine/combined, and rabbit reagents. Deviations of more than 10% from certified INR values were significantly reduced (P < .001).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibrahim et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: