| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06288681 Validity of Criteria Used to Evaluate Fingerstick Devices That Assess International Normalized RatioCenter for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, kshermo1{at}jhmi.edu
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, Department of Statistics and H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
Department of Pharmacy, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
Pharmacy Systems, Inc., Department of Pharmacy, St. West Shore Hospital, Westlake OH
Background. Investigators commonly rely on unvalidated, mainly arithmetic criteria to predict if point-of-care fingerstick devices that assess International Normalized Ratio (INR) lead to the same warfarin dosing decisions as a standard measure. Methods. Criteria that predict warfarin dosing agreement between 2 INR measurements were evaluated using clinicians’ actual dosing decisions as the standard. Bayesian hierarchical modeling was used to rank the criteria by the proportion of correct dosing predictions and the magnitude of difference between actual and predicted dosing agreement.Results. The prediction criteria misclassified dosing agreement for between 19% and 38% of paired INR values (
Key Words: International Normalized Ratio • validity • outcome assessment • bias • warfarin • point of care systems
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
x: 27%). The magnitude of misclassification varied inconsistently throughout the INR scale. Conclusion. The unvalidated criteria used to predict warfarin dosing agreement between 2 INR measurements are associated with large error. Warfarin dosing decisions should be measured directly in such assessments. 
