ReviewExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Thrombotic risk in antiphospholipidic syndrome: From hypothesis to current evidence (Review).
Review in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary Embolism in Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)-Where Are We and Where Are We Going?International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thirty-five years after it was first described, antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is unanimously recognized as a systemic autoimmune disease, a major acquired thrombophilia, which can affect any arterial or venous vascular territory, explaining the great diversity of clinical manifestations. The current classification criteria updated in the International Consensus Statement for Definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome from Sydney cannot explain alone the unpredictable evolution with thrombotic events of the patients diagnosed with APS. Although the link to genetics and epigenetics has not been clearly defined as in other autoimmune diseases, it is clear that a proper stratification of thrombotic risk in the era of personalized medicine must include classic biological markers (antiphospholipid antibodies, aPL), along with the already recognized phenotypes, non-conventional serological markers, and additional genetic risk factors for thrombosis. Moreover, with advancing age, a patient with APS develops other thrombotic risk factors which include: hypertension and dyslipidemia among others. According to the classification criteria, a patient is considered to have a low, moderate or high thrombotic risk. In clinical practice, patients with the same risk score may have completely different evolutions in terms of the recurrence of thrombosis. Concerning this approach, it appears that new non-conventional serological markers, phenotype-assessment and genetic determinants have an increasing importance and should be reconsidered in a proper thrombotic risk evaluation in patients with APS, compared to the initial concept of APS as first defined.
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.