4.5 Article

Inr tracking with face-to-face and phone app

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 102, 期 35, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034875

关键词

international normalized ratio; mobile applications; warfarin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of face-to-face and telephone applications on patients' international normalized ratio (INR). The results showed that there was no significant difference in INR levels between patients monitored through telephone application and those monitored through face-to-face. Therefore, telephone application can be used for warfarin therapy management.
Background: Warfarin has a narrow therapeutic window. Maintaining the patient's international normalized ratio (INR) within a predefined therapeutic range is one of the main challenges of warfarin treatment. This study aimed to compare the INR values of patients followed by face-to-face and telephone applications.Methods: This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Twelve patients living in a distant place were assigned to the experimental group, and 12 patients living nearby and followed-up in the outpatient clinic were assigned to the control group. A Patient Information Form and the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale were used to collect data.Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics except for age (P > .05). The INR values of 67% of the patients followed in the outpatient clinic and 72% of the patients followed with the application were in the therapeutic range. There was no significant difference between the groups and medication adherence was high in both groups (P > .05).Conclusion: In light of the findings of our study, which demonstrated that the INR levels of patients who were monitored both face-to-face and via a telephone application were within the same therapeutic range, it was concluded that the telephone application can be used to manage warfarin therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据