A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol, to answer the question: 'In patients taking warfarin, is home self-monitoring of international normalized ratio (INR) safer than clinic-based testing in reducing bleeding, thrombotic events and death?' Altogether, 268 papers were found using the reported search. Five papers represented the highest level of evidence to answer the clinical question (four systematic reviews with meta-analysis and one meta-analysis). The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The principal outcomes of interest were death, major haemorrhage, major thromboembolism, and time (or percentage time) spent within the therapeutic range, compared between self-monitoring/self-management and conventional management. Self-monitoring/self-management was associated with a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality of 26-42%. All meta-analyses reported on major thromboembolism, finding significant reductions in risk of ~50%. One meta-analysis found a 35% reduction in the risk of major haemorrhage, with the other four studies finding no significant difference. Only one study found self-monitoring/self-management to be associated with a significantly greater proportion of time within range, with another finding no significant difference in either the percentage of therapeutic results or in the time within range. The remaining two could not combine data for meta-analysis owing to methodological heterogeneity. We conclude that self-monitoring/self-management appears to be safer than conventional management. It is associated with consistently lower rates of thromboembolism and may also be associated with reduced risk of bleeding and death. This supports the updated guidance from the American College of Chest Physicians, recommending self-management of INR for patients who are both competent and motivated.