ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2021
A Comparative Evaluation of an Automated Functional Assay for Von Willebrand Factor Activity in Type 1 Von Willebrand Disease.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-readout photonic sensor for rapid diagnosis of Von Willebrand disease.Npj biosensing · 2026Article
- An Automated pre-Dilution Setup for Von Willebrand Factor Activity Assays.Bio-protocol · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Von Willebrand Activity Versus Ristocetin Cofactor Tests in the Primary Evaluation of Von Willebrand Disease in Colombia.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundvon Willebrand factor ristocetin cofactor activity (VWF:RCo) is the standard functional assay used for von Willebrand disease (VWD) diagnosis. However, it has some drawbacks including being time consuming and labor intensive and having high inter-laboratory variability. The HemosIL VWF activity assay has the advantages of both high speed and automation. The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare these two functional assays for type 1 VWD detection.
methodsPlasma samples from 108 subjects were assessed in this study. HemosIL VWF activity was measured with the HemosIL latex immunoturbidimetric commercial kits by the ACL TOP coagulation analyzer. VWF:RCo was measured by platelet aggregation method. Pearson correlation analyses were performed to estimate the correlation of HemosIL VWF activity with VWF:RCo. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the two diagnostic tests.
resultsThe correlation coefficient between VWF:RCo and HemosIL VWF activity was 0.874 overall and was 0.761 and 0.811 in the cohorts of type 1 VWD and non-VWD, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HemosIL VWF activity assay for type 1 VWD identification were 94.7% and 80.0%, respectively, and the ROC curve of HemosIL VWF activity was larger than that of VWF:RCo (0.928 vs 0.863, p=0.0138). Finally, the positive and negative predictive values of the HemosIL VWF activity assay for type 1 VWD detection were 72.0% and 96.6%, respectively.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that the HemosIL VWF activity assay was an effective method for type 1 VWD screening and diagnosis. It carried good sensitivity and specificity and had a higher ROC curve than VWF:RCo besides showing good correlation with VWF:RCo. With its advantages of greater speed and automated performance, these results suggest that the HemosIL VWF activity assay was reliable and precise in the clinical setting.
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.