You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Reliability Of International Normalised Ratios From Two Point Of Care Test Systems: Comparison With Conventional Methods
Leon Poller, Michelle Keown, Nikhil Chauhan, Anton M. H. P. van den Besselaar, Armando Tripodi, Caroline Shiach and Jorgen Jespersen
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 327, No. 7405 (Jul. 5, 2003), pp. 30-32
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25454908
Page Count: 3
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Objective To find out how accurately two point of care test systems-CoaguChek Mini and TAS PT-NC (RapidPointCoag)-display international normalised ratios (INRs). Design Comparison of the INRs from the two systems with a "true" INR on a conventional manual test from the same sample of blood. Setting 10 European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation centres. Participants 600 patients on long term dosage of warfarin. Main outcome measures Comparable results between the different methods. Results The mean displayed INR differed by 21.3% between the two point of care test monitoring systems. The INR on one system was 15.2% higher, on average, than the true INR, but on the other system the INR was 7.1% lower. The percentage difference between the mean displayed INR and the true INR at individual centres varied considerably with both systems. Conclusions Improved international sensitivity index calibration of point of care test monitors by their manufacturers is needed, and better methods of quality control of individual instruments by their users are also needed.
BMJ: British Medical Journal © 2003 BMJ