Key result
Portable INR monitors outperform insensitive lab thromboplastin methods but trail sensitive lab assays.
Why the study?
The accuracy of portable INR monitors has never been determined by comparison with a criterion standard INR determination.
How accurate are portable INR monitors and various laboratory methods compared to a criterion standard INR determination?
Population
Whole-blood and frozen-plasma samples for INR determination
Comparison
Two portable INR monitors vs four laboratory methods vs criterion standard INR
Design
Observational study comparing INR measurement methods
Authors
Loading...
Monitor INR accuracy appears satisfactory versus criterion standard; leaves open whether routine use improves clinical outcomes versus lab testing.
Observational
How accurate are portable INR monitors and various laboratory methods compared to a criterion standard INR determination?
p-value: p=<.003
Portable INR monitors provide satisfactory accuracy for clinical use, performing better than laboratory methods that use insensitive thromboplastins but worse than those using highly sensitive reagents.
Scott S. Kaatz (1995) conducted an observational in Warfarin therapy. Portable INR monitors vs. Criterion standard INR was evaluated on Agreement with criterion standard values in designating a sample to be within or outside of currently recommended INR target ranges (p=<.003). Portable INR monitors demonstrated satisfactory accuracy, performing significantly better than laboratory methods using insensitive thromboplastins (P<.003) but worse than sensitive laboratory methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: