Key result
External quality assessment of PFA-100 and PFA-200 instruments demonstrated highly reproducible closure times with coefficients of variation ranging from 15% to 25%, with no evident difference between systems.
Population
43 external quality assessment challenges designed to mimic moderate or severe primary hemostasis defects
Comparison
External quality assessment and internal quality… vs PFA-100 vs. PFA-200 instruments
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Reproducible PFA-100/200 closure times support QC processes; leaves open clinical outcome validation.
Observational
IQC and EQA processes for the PFA-100/200 are highly reproducible, with both instruments performing similarly, supporting robust quality control for platelet function testing.
Favaloro et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Primary hemostasis defects. PFA-200 vs. PFA-100 was evaluated on Closure times (CTs) and participant-supplied interpretive comments. External quality assessment of PFA-100 and PFA-200 instruments demonstrated highly reproducible closure times with coefficients of variation ranging from 15% to 25%, with no evident difference between systems.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: