What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the variability of displayed International Normalized Ratio (INR) measurements between point-of-care monitors of the same manufacture using identical whole blood samples.

January 1, 2002Thrombosis and Haemostasis

European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA): International Normalized Ratio Variability of CoaguChek and TAS Point-of-Care Testing Whole Blood Prothrombin Time Monitors

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does the brand of point-of-care testing monitor affect the variability of displayed INR in whole blood samples?

Population

Whole blood samples from two normal donors and four coumarin-treated patients (n=6)

Comparison

CoaguChek Mini point-of-care testing whole blood… vs TAS PT-NC point-of-care testing whole blood…

Design

Other

Authors

MKMichelle KeownUniversity of Edinburgh NCNikhil ChauhanChandigarh University CSCaroline ShiachUniversity of Liverpool

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Brand-specific INR dispersion warrants device caution in practice; leaves open whether duplicate protocols can standardize readings.

Key Points

To evaluate the variability of displayed International Normalized Ratio (INR) measurements between point-of-care monitors of the same manufacture using identical whole blood samples.
Evaluated 14 instruments each of two monitor brands (CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC, coded as Brand A and Brand B).
Tested whole blood samples from two normal donors and four coumarin-treated patients on the same day, in the same laboratory, and by the same operator to control for external variability.
Brand B showed a markedly wider dispersion of displayed INR values than Brand A across the tested blood samples.
One Brand A monitor failed to yield a result for one patient sample, while one Brand B instrument produced an aberrant reading on a normal donor sample.
INR variability across both monitor brands was driven predominantly by duplicate testing differences rather than true between-instrument variation.

Structured PICO

Does the brand of point-of-care testing monitor affect the variability of displayed INR in whole blood samples?

Population

Whole blood samples from two normal donors and four coumarin-treated patients (n=6)

Intervention

CoaguChek Mini point-of-care testing whole blood prothrombin time monitor (14 instruments)

Comparator

TAS PT-NC point-of-care testing whole blood prothrombin time monitor (14 instruments)

Outcome

Variability in displayed International Normalised Ratio (INR)surrogate

Point-of-care INR monitors exhibit variability primarily due to duplication differences rather than between-instrument differences, with some brands showing wider dispersion than others.

Cite This Study

Keown et al. (2002) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7c062bc2a640f0bcdf8ec4 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1613345

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA): International Normalized Ratio Variability of CoaguChek and TAS Point-of-Care Testing Whole Blood Prothrombin Time Monitors

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation (ECAA): International Normalized Ratio Variability of CoaguChek and TAS Point-of-Care Testing Whole Blood Prothrombin Time Monitors

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider