Key result
The AvoSure point-of-care device yielded higher dosing agreement with laboratory INR values than the ProTime device (78% vs 66%, p<0.001) and demonstrated less systematic bias.
Why the study?
Do point-of-care INR devices (AvoSure and ProTime) provide accurate warfarin dosing decisions compared to reference laboratory measurements in patients taking oral warfarin?
Observational (n=212)
No
Do point-of-care INR devices (AvoSure and ProTime) provide accurate warfarin dosing decisions compared to reference laboratory measurements in patients taking oral warfarin?
The AvoSure point-of-care INR device provides more accurate warfarin dosing decisions and less systematic bias compared to the ProTime device when referenced against laboratory measurements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support preferring AvoSure over ProTime for POC INR dosing; leaves open whether it improves outcomes versus laboratory testing.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shermock et al. (2002) conducted an observational in Patients taking oral warfarin (n=212). AvoSure point-of-care device vs. ProTime point-of-care device was evaluated on Dosing agreement with laboratory INR values (p=< 0.001). The AvoSure point-of-care device yielded higher dosing agreement with laboratory INR values than the ProTime device (78% vs 66%, p<0.001) and demonstrated less systematic bias.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: