ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2021
Validation of the adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score in a single centre cohort of APS patients from Turkey.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2021. 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.
- A novel aGAPSS-based nomogram for the prediction of ischemic stroke in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Trial
- A young woman with acute coronary syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome. Is it the antiphospholipid syndrome or COVID-19 vaccination or classical risk as the risk factor? a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
- Development and external validation of a prediction model for venous thromboembolism in systemic lupus erythematosus.RMD open · 2023Article
- Validation of three prediction models for thrombosis recurrence in antiphospholipid syndrome patients based on a prospective cohort.RMD open · 2023Article
- Thrombotic risk assessment in antiphospholipid syndrome: do noncriteria antibodies contribute?Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adjusted global antiphospholipid syndrome score (aGAPSS) is a recently developed thrombotic risk assessment score that considers the antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) profile and conventional cardiovascular risk factors. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the validity of the aGAPSS in predicting clinical manifestations (criteria and extra-criteria) of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in a single centre cohort of patients. Ninety-eight patients with APS ± systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were classified according to clinical manifestations as vascular thrombosis (VT), pregnancy morbidity (PM) or both (VT + PM). The aGAPSS was calculated for each patient as previously defined. Mean aGAPSS of the cohort was calculated as 10.2 ± 3.8. Significantly higher aGAPSS values were seen in VT (n = 58) and VT + PM (n = 29) groups when compared to PM (n = 11) group (10.6 ± 3.7 vs 7.4 ± 2.9, P = 0.005; 10.7 ± 4 vs 7.4 ± 2.9, P = 0.008, respectively), mainly due to lower frequencies of cardiovascular risk factors in PM. Higher aGAPPS values were also associated with recurrent thrombosis (11.6 ± 3.7 vs 9.9 ± 3.6, P = 0.04). Regarding extra-criteria manifestations, patients with livedo reticularis (n = 11) and APS nephropathy (n = 9) had significantly higher aGAPSS values (12.9 ± 3.4 vs 9.9 ± 3.7, P = 0.02; 12.4 ± 2.9 vs 10 ± 3.8, P = 0.04, respectively). The computed AUC demonstrated that aGAPSS values ≥10 had the best diagnostic accuracy for thrombosis. Our results suggest that patients with higher aGAPSS values are at higher risk for developing vascular thrombosis (either first event or recurrence) and extra-criteria manifestations, especially livedo reticularis and APS nephropathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32588289What 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.