ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Laboratory Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights and Hindrances.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiphospholipid antibodies and cardiovascular thrombosis.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Design and Implementation of an Automated Interpretation Algorithm for Lupus Anticoagulant Functional Testing.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Validation of point-of-care INR testing against standard laboratory methods in a Malaysian primary healthcare setting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Digital decision support using a phospholipid-dependent biomarker for early exclusion of negative cases in lupus anticoagulant diagnostics.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Reference intervals for aCL and anti-β2GPI IgAGM antibodies in a large health-inspection population: a foundational study for combined-isotype assay interpretation.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Can prothrombin time assays withstand the influence of antiprothrombin and anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies on the international normalized ratio?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Normalization of activated partial thromboplastin time and diluted Russell's viper venom time ratios can be safely omitted in the assessment of lupus anticoagulant.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Association between activated partial thromboplastin time and septic shock in pregnant women: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Antiphospholipid Syndrome in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Lupus Anticoagulant Testing for Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Perspective Informed by Local Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Detection of moderate to high antiphospholipid antibodies by chemiluminescence meets 2023 APS classification criteria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effective in-house-made whole blood materials for internal quality control in clinical flow cytometry analysis.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Article
- A case series on TNF-α inhibitors for APS- induced high-risk pregnancies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Functionally overlapping intra- and extralysosomal pathways promote bis(monoacylglycero)phosphate synthesis in mammalian cells.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing in a Maximum Care Hospital: Method-Dependent Differences.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome.Biochemia medica · 2024Review
- Testing for the lupus anticoagulant: the good, the bad, and the ugly.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- A thrombin-driven neural net diagnoses the antiphospholipid syndrome without the need for interruption of anticoagulation.Blood advances · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) requires the presence of a clinical criterion (thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity), combined with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Currently, laboratory criteria aPL consist of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) IgG/IgM, and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM. Diagnosis and risk stratification of APS are complex and efforts to standardize and optimize laboratory tests have been ongoing since the initial description of the syndrome. LAC detection is based on functional coagulation assays, while aCL and aβ2GPI are measured with immunological solid-phase assays. LAC assays are especially prone to interference by anticoagulation therapy, but strategies to circumvent this interference are promising. Alternative techniques such as thrombin generation for LAC detection and to estimate LAC pathogenicity have been suggested, but are not applicable yet in routine setting. For aCL and aβ2GPI, a lot of different assays and detection techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent and chemiluminescent assays are available. Furthermore, a lack of universal calibrators or standards results in high variability between the different solid-phase assays. Other non-criteria aPL such as anti-domain I β2 glycoprotein I and antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies have been suggested for risk stratification purposes in APS, while their added value to diagnostic criteria seems limited. In this review, we will describe laboratory assays for diagnostic and risk evaluation in APS, integrating applicable guidelines and classification criteria. Current insights and hindrances are addressed with respect to both laboratory and clinical implications.
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.