The data presented here was produced as part of an evaluation of the performance of the CoaguChek XS point-of-care coagulation analyzer, which is discussed in the research article "POCT PT INR - Is it adequate for Patient Care? A Comparison of the Roche Coaguchek XS vs. Stago Star vs. Siemens BCS in Patients Routinely Seen in an Anticoagulation Clinic" (Baker et al., in press) [1]. An effort to reconcile discrepancies in the patient INR result distributions from different central lab instruments (Stago Star and Siemens BCS) with the PT/INR line method is described (Poller et al., 2010, 2011; Ibrahim et al., 2011) [2], [3], [4]. While regression analysis of the ECAA Poller calibrant data provided a linear PT/INR line for all methods, Pearson's chi-squared and one-way repeated measures ANOVA analyses showed that central lab INR measurements continued to exhibit measurement site dependence after the PT/INR line correction was applied. According to paired t-test analysis, only the human thromboplastin dependent methods (CoaguChek XS and Siemens BCS both before and after PT/INR line correction) showed statistically significant agreement (p-value >0.05).