These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparability of the results of PT-INR with local MNPT and APTTR with MNAPTT on different coagulation analyzers in China.
    Author: Peng L, Yan C, Wu X, Nie L.
    Journal: Int J Lab Hematol; 2009 Jun; 31(3):352-8. PubMed ID: 18510575.
    Abstract:
    The prothrombin time (PT), International normalized ratio (INR) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are the most used coagulation tests in China, where more than one type of automated coagulation analyzer is often used in the clinical laboratory. The PT-INR results of 109 samples were compared with local mean normal PT (MNPT) and APTT ratio (APTTR) with mean normal APTT (MNAPTT) on two different coagulation analyzers in the same laboratory. The two different coagulation analyzers showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in PT and INR determination, but there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) for APTT. The INR with local MNPT and APTTR with MNAPTT, obtained with the ACL Futura and CA 510, showed much better agreement; 98.8% (82/83) of bias for INR with local MNPT was less than 15% compared with 90.4% (75/83) of bias for INR; and 100% of bias for APTTR (62/62) was less than 15% compared with only 6.5% (4/62) of bias for APTT. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference (P = 0.865) for APTTR with MNAPTT compared with APTT (P = 0.002) between the ACL Futura and CA 510. In conclusion, these analyzers showed very poor agreement for both the PT and APTT, but the calculation of ratios significantly improved agreement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]