...
首页> 外文期刊>Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Journal of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis >Point-of-care International Normalised Ratios: UK NEQAS experience demonstrates necessity for proficiency testing of three different monitors.
【24h】

Point-of-care International Normalised Ratios: UK NEQAS experience demonstrates necessity for proficiency testing of three different monitors.

机译:即时护理国际标准化比率:英国NEQAS的经验表明,需要对三种不同的监测器进行能力验证。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

External quality assessment (EQA) or proficiency testing is widely considered to be necessary for International Normalised Ratio (INR) determinations performed in conventional laboratory settings. There is increasing use of near-patient-test (NPT) or point-of-care (POC) INR devices and it is not known whether EQA is also necessary for these monitors. We report here on six years experience of proficiency testing for POC monitors used by health care professionals. Three devices were used by >10 centres who participated in the programme, the CoaguChek (CUC), the CUC-S and the TAS or Rapidpoint Coag. Not all users of the same type of monitor obtained the same INR result when analysing the same plasma sample. For the three monitors the CV of results in different centres was 11-14%. The variation between results in different centres could relate to inappropriately handled proficiency testing material, inaccuracies in the calibration of the system by the manufacturer or deterioration during transport/storage of the test strips. In each survey 10-11% of centres using POC monitors obtained INR results which were >15% different from those in other centres using the same monitors. For hospital laboratories using conventional INR techniques this figure was 12%. The relationship between INR results obtained by users of the Rapidpoint Coag or TAS monitor and results obtained by conventional techniques was not constant over the period of study. During one period INRs with TAS were 13.7% greater than with conventional methods. For the remaining three time periods results were similar. Our data suggest that the variation between INR results determined with three POC monitors show similar variation to that observed in hospital laboratories using conventional methods. Based on our data we recommend that users of these POC monitors participate regularly in an independent external proficiency testing programme.
机译:人们普遍认为,在常规实验室中进行的国际标准化比率(INR)测定需要外部质量评估(EQA)或能力验证。越来越多的患者使用近距离测试(NPT)或即时护理(POC)的INR设备,并且未知这些监视器是否也需要EQA。我们在这里报告了六年来医疗专业人员使用的POC监视器的能力测试的经验。参与该计划的十多个中心使用了三种设备,即CoaguChek(CUC),CUC-S和TAS或Rapidpoint Coag。在分析相同的血浆样本时,并非所有相同类型的监视器的用户都获得相同的INR结果。对于三名监测员,不同中心的结果CV为11-14%。不同中心的结果之间的差异可能与处理不当的能力测试材料,制造商对系统的校准不准确或测试条的运输/存储过程中的性能下降有关。在每个调查中,使用POC监视器的中心中有10-11%的中心获得了INR结果,与使用相同监视器的其他中心中的INR结果相差> 15%。对于使用常规INR技术的医院实验室,该数字为12%。在研究期间,由Rapidpoint Coag或TAS监视器的用户获得的INR结果与通过常规技术获得的结果之间的关系不是恒定的。在一个时期内,TAS的INR比传统方法高13.7%。对于其余三个时间段,结果相似。我们的数据表明,使用三台POC监视器确定的INR结果之间的差异与使用常规方法在医院实验室中观察到的差异相似。根据我们的数据,我们建议这些POC监视器的用户定期参加独立的外部能力测试计划。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号