This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
The thesis of the paper of G. A. Mayer and W. F. Connell (J. A. M. A.161:806 [June 30] 1956) that the clotting time is a more valuable guide to Dicumarol therapy than the Quick one-stage prothrombin time test is fraught with such danger that I deem it an obligation to submit this communication. The idea of substituting the clotting time for the prothrombin time is not new. Cheney in 1940 (Am. J. M. Sc.200:327) proposed the plasma clotting time to estimate hypoprothrombinemia and a careful survey of the literature might disclose other attempts, but, significantly, anticoagulant therapy continues to be controlled by the one-stage method in nearly all the hospitals of the world, presumably with success.It might be well to recall that the clotting time was available long before the prothrombin time. Many of the older surgeons will remember how many
Quick AJ. CLOTTING VERSUS PROTHROMBIN TIME. JAMA. 1956;161(17):1699. doi:10.1001/jama.1956.02970170095019
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: