Two studies evaluated the effect of PSM on quality of life.52,59 The EtD framework is shown online at https://dbep.gradepro.org/ profile/323c2cad-e2ab-4fd6-b35f-be34eee8219a. Benefits. For benefits, see the evidence profile in the EtD framework referenced at the end of the previous section, available online. Studies assessing mortality found a benefit favoring those performing PSM (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38-0.89]; ARR, 16 fewer deaths per 1000 [95% CI, 4 fewer to 24 fewer deaths per 1000]; high certainty). PSM reduced the risk for recurrent PE (RR, 0.48 14 fewer per 1000]; moderate certainty) and DVT (RR, 0.48 [95% fewer per 1000]; moderate certainty). In studies assessing INR control, TTR was modestly higher in the PSM group, but the estimate is imprecise and the CI includes no effect (MD, 4.41% [95% CI, 0.09% lower to 8.92% higher]; very low certainty). General treatment satisfaction and daily hassles scores improved with PSM and remained unchanged in the control group.59 Self- efficacy and distress scores improved in both groups but improved significantly more with PSM. PSM had no significant effect on the strained social network scores.59 After 4 months, treatment satisfaction significantly improved and daily hassles, psychological distress, and a strained social network all significantly decreased with PSM compared with the control group.52 Harms and burden. PSM vs other INR monitoring methods probably has no influence on the risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.09 more per 1000] for an average bleeding risk population. Other EtD criteria and considerations. The guideline panel considered that moderate costs were associated with PSM resource requirements, owing mainly to the costs of the point-of-care monitors and testing supplies and the more frequent INR testing that is generally used with PSM. 