ArticleImmunologic research2018
What is the best time to assess the antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) profile to better predict the obstetric outcome in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients?
Article in Immunologic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impacts of Inflammatory and Autoimmune Conditions on the Endometrium and Reproductive Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Loss of opportunities in the diagnosis and treatment of primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS): from theory to reality.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Clinical Features and Outcomes of Twin Pregnancies with Antiphospholipid Antibodies Positivity: A Retrospective Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Positive antiphospholipid antibodies: observation or treatment?Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Review
- A high-risk laboratory profile of antiphospholipid antibodies and thrombosis is associated with a large number of extra-criteria manifestations in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome.Immunologic research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serological risk factors are the most important determinant in predicting unsuccessful pregnancy in obstetric antiphospholipid antibodies syndrome (OAPS) despite conventional treatment. It is not clear if changes in the profile of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) during pregnancy modify the risk associated with a poor response to conventional treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the value of a serological tag for aPL obtained before and during the first trimester of pregnancy to predict the response to conventional treatment. We carefully selected 97 pregnancies in women who were included in our study only if they were diagnosed with OAPS prior to a new pregnancy (basal serological risk), retested for aPL during the first trimester of pregnancy (serological risk during pregnancy), and treated with conventional therapy. High baseline serological risk was associated with pregnancy failure in 62.1% of cases (18/29) and predicted 82.5% of pregnancy outcomes with conventional treatment: OR = 16.9, CI = 5.5-52.1, p < 0.001. High serological risk during pregnancy was associated with pregnancy failure in 86.3% of cases (19/22) and predicted 91.8% of pregnancy outcomes with conventional treatment: OR = 88.7, CI = 19.4-404.8, p < 0.001. According to these results, we found that risk categorization performed during pregnancy was better in predicting pregnancy outcome (82.5 vs. 91.8%). Moreover, risk categorization during pregnancy had an increased specificity regarding the prediction: 84.9% at baseline and 95.9% during pregnancy (p = 0.024). Our findings suggest that it is important to perform aPL during the first trimester of pregnancy since that is the best time to establish the serological risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.