The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Point-of-care versus central laboratory coagulation testing during haemorrhagic surgery: A multicenter study
Abstract
Summary: Delay in collecting coagulation test results from a central laboratory is one of the critical issues to efficiently control haemostasis during surgery. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the performance of a point-of-care (POC) device (CoaguChek™ Pro DM) with the central laboratory-based coagulation testing during haemorrhagic surgery. For this purpose, 93 patients undergoing major surgical procedure were prospectively included in three centers. Blood was drawn from all patients before surgical incision and from most patients during surgical procedure after a blood loss of 25% or more was observed. When expressed in activity percentage, POC-based prothrombin time (PT) was in good agreement with central laboratory test result with coefficient of correlation in the range from 0.711 to 0.960 in the three centers. Comparison was less conclusive when PT was expressed in seconds or as the patient-to-control ratio and for activated partial thromboplastin time, with significantly shorter clotting times and lower ratios obtained on the POC device. On-site PT (in activity percentage) monitoring would have induced no significant change in fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion in patients when compared to central laboratory monitoring. Test results were obtained in less than 5 minutes when performed using the POC device versus a median turnaround time of 88 minutes (range: 29–235 minutes) when blood collection tubes were sent to the central laboratory. These results suggest that, in providing a rapid answer, POC-based monitoring of PT (in percentage) using the CoaguChek device could be validly used in patients undergoing haemorrhagic surgical procedures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Management of severe perioperative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology
Kozek-Langenecker, S. A., Afshari, A., Albaladejo, P., Santullano, C. A. A., De Robertis, E., Filipescu, D. C., Fries, D., Görlinger, K., Haas, T., Imberger, G., et al. (2013) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e32835f4d5b · Cited by 909
Self-citationWeber, C. F., Görlinger, K., Meininger, D., Herrmann, E., Bingold, T., Moritz, A., Cohn, L. H., & Zacharowski, K. (2012) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e318264c644 · Cited by 625
FIBTEM provides early prediction of massive transfusion in trauma
Schöchl, H., Cotton, B., Inaba, K., Nienaber, U., Fischer, H., Voelckel, W., & Solomon, C. (2011) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc10539 · Cited by 313
The role of evidence-based algorithms for rotational thromboelastometry-guided bleeding management
Görlinger, K., Pérez-Ferrer, A., Dirkmann, D., Saner, F., Maegele, M., Calatayud, Á. A. P., & Kim, T.-Y. (2019) · Korean Journal of Anesthesiology · doi:10.4097/kja.19169 · Cited by 257
Haas, T., Fries, D., Tanaka, K. A., Asmis, L., Curry, N. S., & Schöchl, H. (2015) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aeu303 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Ozier, Y., Ankri, A., Fléron, M.-H., Leroux, G., Samama, C. M., & Toulon, P.
- Venue
- Thrombosis and Haemostasis
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 394-401
- ISSN
- 0340-6245 (ISSN-L)
- 2567-689X
- OpenAlex
- W2163395920
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Point-of-care versus central laboratory coagulation testing during haemorrhagic surgery: A multicenter study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1160/th08-06-0383
- The paper
- Ozier, Y., Ankri, A., Fléron, M.-H., Leroux, G., Samama, C. M., & Toulon, P. (2009). Point-of-care versus central laboratory coagulation testing during haemorrhagic surgery: A multicenter study. Thrombosis and Haemostasis. https://doi.org/10.1160/th08-06-0383
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
