Validity of criteria used to evaluate fingerstick devices that assess International Normalized Ratio

Kenneth M. Shermock, Jason T. Connor, Nicole T. Smith, Jodie M. Fink, Lee Bragg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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 (x̄: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)239-246
Number of pages8
JournalMedical Decision Making
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2006

Keywords

  • Bias
  • International Normalized Ratio
  • Outcome assessment
  • Point of care systems
  • Validity
  • Warfarin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of criteria used to evaluate fingerstick devices that assess International Normalized Ratio'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this