The guideline panel agreed that 6- to 12-week INR recall intervals would probably result in moderate resources savings. The panel determined that longer INR recall intervals would increase health equity, would be acceptable to key stakeholders, and are feasible. Conclusions and research needs for this recommendation. Given that less frequent INR monitoring reduces the burden on patients, lessens workload on anticoagulation providers, is acceptable to key stakeholders, and is feasible to implement and likely reduces cost without incurring convincing adverse conse- quences, the panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of longer INR recall intervals. The panel did not specify a definition of stable INR control and agreed that this should be defined according to local standards. The panel also determined that this recommendation should not be used for patients engaging in PST or PSM, as these patients were not included in the RCTs for longer INR recall intervals and are usually monitored more frequently than the 4-week INR recall interval comparator used for this recommendation. Patients with psychiatric disorders and/ or history of poor adherence were also excluded from these studies and are poor candidates for extended INR recall intervals. Patients should be instructed to have their INR tested any time their health status changes, their current medications change, or there is a significant change in their dietary intake of vitamin K containing foods. The panel identified the following additional research questions. (1) What is the comparative effectiveness of 6- to 12-week INR recall intervals compared with a 4-week recall interval in real- world patients during periods of stable INR control? Given the low risk of adverse events in stable patients, a very large patient sample will likely be required to answer this question. 