Key result
Point-of-care monitoring devices (CoaguChek and ProTime) were highly correlated with the standard laboratory method for INR determination (r ≥ 0.90; p ≤ 0.001).
Why the study?
Do point-of-care monitoring devices accurately measure INR compared to standard laboratory methods?
Population
Patients requiring INR monitoring (specific details and sample size not provided in abstract)
Comparison
Point-of-care monitoring devices using finger… vs Standard laboratory method using venous blood…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Point-of-care INR devices may be feasible alternatives; leaves open prospective outcome trials before routine adoption.
Cross-Sectional
Do point-of-care monitoring devices accurately measure INR compared to standard laboratory methods?
Effect estimate: r ≥ 0.90
p-value: p=≤ 0.001
Point-of-care INR monitoring devices provide comparable accuracy and clinical correlation to standard laboratory methods, supporting their utility in anticoagulation management.
Stoysich et al. (2001) conducted a cross-sectional in Anticoagulation monitoring. Point-of-care monitoring devices (CoaguChek and ProTime) vs. Standard laboratory method (SLM) was evaluated on Accuracy, precision, and clinical correlation of INR determination (r ≥ 0.90, p=≤ 0.001). Point-of-care monitoring devices (CoaguChek and ProTime) were highly correlated with the standard laboratory method for INR determination (r ≥ 0.90; p ≤ 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: