ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2021
Indication and outcome of lupus anticoagulant and antiphospholipid antibodies testing in routine clinical practice.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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.
- Current status and value of testing antiphospholipid antibody in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective single-center study in China.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLupus anticoagulans (LACs) and aPLs, both further summarized as aPL, are frequently assessed in routine daily clinical practice in diagnostic workups for suspected autoimmune diseases or to test for underlying risk factors in patients with thrombosis or obstetric complications. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of aPL positivity in patients with an indication for aPL testing in routine clinical practice.
methodsIn this retrospective single-centre study, indication for aPL testing, aPL test results and clinical data were collected for patients tested between June 2015 and April 2018.
resultsDuring the study period, 16 847 single aPL tests were performed in 2139 patients. In 212 patients one or more positive aPL test was found, confirmed in 43.9% with a second positive test. Indications for aPL testing were diagnostic workup/follow-up of autoimmune diseases (33.6%), thrombosis (21.4%) and obstetric complications (28%). Seventy-four patients (3.5% of all patients) fulfilled the criteria of APS, of whom 51% were newly diagnosed. Second positive aPL titres and titres of APS patients were significantly higher compared with positive aPL titres at the first measurement (
conclusionThe prevalence of one or more positive aPL test was 9.9% and APS was diagnosed in 3.5% of the patients. Patients with arterial thrombosis had significantly higher anti-β2GPI IgG and aCL IgG, which should be confirmed in future studies.
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.