Key result
CoaguChek Pro DM showed good correlation with laboratory methods for PT (r=0.958) and aPTT (r=0.885), but important dispersion of values could lead to discrepant therapeutic decisions.
Why the study?
Does the CoaguChek Pro DM bedside monitor provide reliable PT and aPTT measurements compared to reference laboratory methods?
Population
54 specimens from healthy subjects and patients, including a subgroup of 19 patients on oral anticoagulant…
Comparison
Bedside coagulation monitor (CoaguChek Pro DM) vs Reference laboratory methods
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
CoaguChek dispersion risks discrepant decisions despite correlation; leaves open prospective validation of consistent-method monitoring in anticoagulation.
Cross-Sectional (n=54)
Does the CoaguChek Pro DM bedside monitor provide reliable PT and aPTT measurements compared to reference laboratory methods?
Effect estimate: PT r = 0.958; aPTT r = 0.885
While bedside CoaguChek monitoring shows good overall correlation with laboratory methods for PT and aPTT, clinically significant discrepancies can occur, highlighting the need to use a consistent method for monitoring individual patients.
Miloš et al. (2004) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy subjects and patients on anticoagulant therapy (n=54). CoaguChek Pro DM bedside coagulation monitor vs. Reference laboratory methods was evaluated on Correlation of PT and aPTT between CoaguChek Pro DM and reference laboratory methods (PT r = 0.958; aPTT r = 0.885). CoaguChek Pro DM showed good correlation with laboratory methods for PT (r=0.958) and aPTT (r=0.885), but important dispersion of values could lead to discrepant therapeutic decisions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: