Cromheecke 2000.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | Single centre, randomised, controlled cross‐over trial. | |
Participants | Participants were 50 consecutive outpatients who were receiving long‐term anticoagulation (mean age 42 years). The study was based in the departments of cardiology and internal medicine of the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). | |
Interventions |
Self‐management vs usual care The intervention group used home self‐testing using Coaguchek® to self‐monitor prothrombin time and self‐dosing testing performed once a week. The conventional management was done by the anticoagulation clinic. INR testing was also performed in all participants at 1‐2 week intervals by the central laboratory; these results were not made available to participants or managing physicians. After three months patients crossed over the alternative management strategy. |
|
Outcomes | Primary outcome: no. of INR measurements within 0.5 of therapeutic target INR. Secondary outcomes: Percentage time within target INR range; no. participants within target range for 0%‐100% of the time; no. participants who achieved better control of anticoagulation. |
|
Trial identification | ||
Study duration | 3 months (followed by cross‐over to alternative intervention group, for a further 3 months. The outcomes used here are those at the end of the first 3 months) | |
Oral anticoagulant used | Phenprocoumon (35% of participants) or acenocoumarol (65% of participants) | |
Notes | All patients were educated and trained to self‐manage anticoagulation during a structured educational program of two 2 hours sessions. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Generation of the randomisation sequence was not reported |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Sealed envelopes concealed the allocation. |
Intention to treat analysis | High risk | ITT analysis was not performed |
Reporting of losses of follow‐up | Low risk | 0% lost to follow‐up |
Blinding | Low risk | Blinded outcome assessors |