A randomized trial of patient self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-management (SM) of warfarin by patients is an attractive strategy, particularly if it improves anticoagulation control and can be done safely under minimal physician supervision. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of SM with physician-management (PM) on the maintenance of therapeutic anticoagulation. METHODS: A randomized, open-label eight-month trial was performed. Patients 18 years of age and older were eligible if they were receiving warfarin for at least one month before enrolment and required anticoagulation for at least one year to a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.5 to 3.5. Exclusion criteria were a known hypercoaguable disorder, mental incompetence, a language barrier or an inability to attend training sessions. Patients randomly assigned to SM tested their INR using a point-of-care device (Pro Time Microcogulation System, International Technidyne Corporation, USA) and adjusted their warfarin doses using a nomogram. Patients randomly assigned to PM received usual care from their general practitioner. The primary outcome was to demonstrate 20% improvement in anticoagulation control by SM. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were randomly assigned (70 per group). Thirteen patients dropped out of SM early due to an inability to self-manage. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in the proportion of INR in range (SM 64.8% versus PM 58.7%, P=0.23) or time in target range (SM 71.8% versus PM 63.2%, P=0.14). Patients managing their own therapy spent less time below the therapeutic range (15.0% versus 27.3%, P=0.04). There were three major complications of thrombosis or bleeding, all occurring in the PM arm. All patients who completed SM preferred to continue with that strategy. CONCLUSIONS: SM was not significantly better than PM in maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation. SM was feasible and appeared safe in the present study population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".