Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
Articles by S. Sandberg
Total Records ( 2 ) for S. Sandberg
  U. O Solvik , P. H Petersen , G Monsen , A. V Stavelin and S. Sandberg

Observed differences between results obtained from comparison of instruments used to measure international normalized ratio (INR) have been higher than expected from the imprecision of the instruments. In this study the variation of these differences was divided into subcomponents, and each of the subcomponents was estimated.


Blood samples were collected at 4 different patient visits from each of 36 outpatients who were receiving warfarin treatment and were included in the study. INR was determined on 1 laboratory instrument (STA Compact®) and 3 point-of-care instruments (Simple Simon®PT, CoaguChek®XS, and INRatioTM). All 4 INR instruments were compared in pairs. Linear regression was used to correct for systematic deviations. The remaining variation of the differences was subdivided into between-subject, within-subject, and analytical variation in an ANOVA nested design.


The mean difference between instruments varied between 1.0% and 14.3%. Between-subject variation of the differences (expressed as CV) varied between 3.3% and 7.4%, whereas within-subject variation of the differences was approximately 5% for all 6 comparisons. The analytical imprecision of the differences varied between 3.8% and 8.6%.


The differences in INR between instruments were subdivided into calibration differences, between- and within-subject variation, and analytical imprecision. The magnitude of each subcomponent was estimated. Within results for individual patients the difference in INR between 2 instruments varied over time. The reasons for the between- and within-subject variations of the differences can probably be ascribed to different patient-specific effects in the patient plasma. To minimize this variation in a monitoring situation, each site and patient should use results from only 1 type of instrument.

  K. M. Aakre , J. Watine , P. S. Bunting , S. Sandberg and W. P. Oosterhuis
  Aims  To evaluate if clinical practice guideline recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes not using insulin follow the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Methods  After a search from 1999 to 2011, 18 clinical practice guidelines were included. Recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose were graded on a scale from one (strongly against self-monitoring) to four (strongly in favour of self-monitoring) and compared with the similarly graded conclusions of systematic reviews that were cited by the clinical practice guidelines. We also investigated how clinical practice guideline characteristics, for example funding sources, and quality of references cited could be related to the guideline recommendations.

Results  The clinical practice guidelines cited in total 15 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, 33 non-randomized controlled trials papers and 18 clinical practice guidelines or position statements. The clinical practice guideline recommendations had an average grade of 3.4 (range 2.0-4.0). Higher grades were seen for clinical practice guidelines that acknowledged industry funding (mean value 4.0) or were issued by organizations depending on private funding (mean value 3.6 vs. 3.0 for governmental funding). The conclusions of the 15 systematic reviews had a mean grade of 2.2 (range 1.0-3.8). Systematic reviews with low grades were less cited. In total, 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic reviews. Approximately half of these evaluated an educational intervention where the effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose could not be clearly isolated.

Conclusions  Clinical practice guidelines were more in favour of self-monitoring use than the systematic reviews that were cited. The citation practice was non-systematic and industry funding seemingly led to a more positive attitude towards use of self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility