首页> 外文OA文献 >Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings.
【2h】

Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings.

机译:国际标准化比率(INR)是否可靠?在医院实验室和基层医疗机构中进行比较测量的试验。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

AIM: To determine the reliability of international normalised ratio (INR) measurement in primary care by practice nurses using near patient testing (NPT), in comparison with results obtained within hospital laboratories by varied methods. METHODS: As part of an MRC funded study into primary care oral anticoagulation management, INR measurements obtained in general practice were validated against values on the same samples obtained in hospital laboratories. A prospective comparative trial was undertaken between three hospital laboratories and nine general practices. All patients attending general practice based anticoagulant clinics had parallel INR estimations performed in general practice and in a hospital laboratory. RESULTS: 405 tests were performed. Comparison between results obtained in the practices and those in the reference hospital laboratory (gold standard), which used the same method of testing for INR, showed a correlation coefficient of 0.96. Correlation coefficients comparing the results with the various standard laboratory techniques ranged from 0.86 to 0.92. It was estimated that up to 53% of tests would have resulted in clinically significant differences (change in warfarin dose) depending upon the site and method of testing. The practice derived results showed a positive bias ranging from 0.28 to 1.55, depending upon the site and method of testing. CONCLUSIONS: No technical problems associated with INR testing within primary care were uncovered. Discrepant INR results are as problematic in hospital settings as they are in primary care. These data highlight the failings of the INR to standardise when different techniques and reagents are used, an issue which needs to be resolved. For primary care to become more involved in therapeutic oral anticoagulation monitoring, close links are needed between hospital laboratories and practices, particularly with regard to training and quality assurance.
机译:目的:与在实验室中通过各种方法获得的结果进行比较,以确定实践护士使用近距离患者测试(NPT)进行国际标准化比率(INR)测量在初级保健中的可靠性。方法:作为由MRC资助的有关初级保健口腔抗凝治疗的研究的一部分,根据在医院实验室获得的相同样本的值验证了在常规操作中获得的INR测量值。在三个医院实验室和九个一般实践之间进行了一项前瞻性比较试验。所有在普通科门诊就诊的患者均在普通科室和医院实验室进行了INR估算。结果:进行了405次测试。在实践中获得的结果与参考医院实验室(金标准)的结果进行了比较,后者使用相同的INR测试方法,相关系数为0.96。将结果与各种标准实验室技术进行比较的相关系数范围为0.86至0.92。据估计,多达53%的测试会导致临床上的显着差异(华法林剂量的变化),具体取决于测试的地点和方法。实践得出的结果表明,根据测试的地点和测试方法,正偏差范围为0.28至1.55。结论:未发现与初级保健中的INR检测有关的技术问题。 INR结果不一在医院中与在初级保健中一样有问题。这些数据凸显了使用不同的技术和试剂时INR未能标准化的问题,这是一个需要解决的问题。为了使初级保健更多地参与治疗性口服抗凝监测,医院实验室与实践之间需要紧密联系,尤其是在培训和质量保证方面。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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