Key result
A systematic review of 15 papers on therapeutic INR control found high variability in reporting, with 7 reporting percentage time in range, 5 reporting mean INR, and 6 reporting proportion of tests in range.
Why the study?
What outcome measures are reported for the therapeutic effectiveness of oral anticoagulation?
Systematic Review (n=15)
What outcome measures are reported for the therapeutic effectiveness of oral anticoagulation?
This systematic review highlights the variability in reporting INR control and recommends reporting at least two outcome measures to monitor both INR determinations and dosing advice.
Clinicians should interpret INR studies cautiously amid reporting variability; extends calls for dual standardized measures in anticoagulation research.
AIMS: To evaluate the evidence of therapeutic international normalised ratio (INR) control reporting and to provide recommendations for future reporting, particularly for research and audit purposes. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published over a five year period describing therapeutic INR control. Papers were identified from the Medline electronic database, and those that met the quality criteria were reviewed independently by an academic general practitioner and a consultant haematologist. RESULTS: Fifteen papers were identified that met the quality criteria for review. The sample size of studies ranged from 53 to 2545 (mean, 483.9) patients. Follow up ranged from three months to 13 years. Twelve studies reported results from secondary care only, one from primary care only, and two from both primary and secondary care. Seven of the 15 papers reported percentage time in range, five of 15 papers reported mean INR, six of 15 papers reported the proportion of tests in range, and five of 15 papers reported mean warfarin dose. Additional methods of presenting INR results were: dose changes each month, distribution of INR results, deviation of INR value from mean, percentage dose changes, time between visits, and median INR value. Six papers reported only one outcome measure, six reported two outcomes, two papers reported three outcomes, and one paper reported five outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that at least two outcome measures should be reported and measures should be selected so that both the INR determinations and dosing advice are monitored.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Fitzmaurice (2002) conducted a systematic review in Therapeutic international normalised ratio (INR) control (n=15). Outcome measures for therapeutic INR control was evaluated on Reported outcome measures for therapeutic INR control. A systematic review of 15 papers on therapeutic INR control found high variability in reporting, with 7 reporting percentage time in range, 5 reporting mean INR, and 6 reporting proportion of tests in range.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: