SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022
Comparison of non-criteria antiphospholipid syndrome with definite antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive antiphospholipid antibody profiling and unsupervised immune phenotyping in fetal growth restriction.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- 2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: more lights rise but shade remains.RMD open · 2025Review
- Antiphospholipid syndrome in pregnancy: a comprehensive literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Review
- Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Myth or Reality?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Pregnancy Outcomes in Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Analysis of a Cohort of 91 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Antibody profiles in the mosaic of 'seronegative' APS syndrome.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Article
- Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Insights into Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Manifestations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Trophoblast Cell Function in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Preeclampsia and the Antiphospholipid Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patients with laboratory or clinical manifestations suggestive of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) but not fulfilling the classification criteria constitute a clinical challenge. This study aims to compare non-criteria APS (NC-APS) with definite APS in terms of clinical manifestations, therapies, and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of observational studies comparing definite and NC-APS was performed searching four electronic databases. Data on clinical manifestations, therapies and clinical outcomes was extracted. Results: Sixteen studies, assessing a total of 3,798 participants, were included. Seven out of 10 studies found no significant difference in the prevalence of arterial or venous thrombosis between definite and NC-APS, with two studies on seronegative APS also finding no difference in thrombosis recurrence. Seven out of 12 studies found no significant difference in the prevalence of obstetric manifestations between groups, with the remaining exhibiting conflicting results. In 9 studies comparing treatment frequency in obstetric patients, all but one described similar treatment frequency, with the percentage of NC-APS treated during pregnancy ranging from 26% to 100%. In 10 studies comparing pregnancy outcomes of NC-APS versus definite APS, 7 found similar successful pregnancies/live births. Additionally, 5 studies described improvement of live births in both groups with treatment, with three signalling aspirin monotherapy as efficacious as combination therapy in NC-APS. Conclusion: This review hints at an absence of marked differences in most evaluated parameters between definite and NC-APS, emphasizing the value of a more active follow-up of these patients. The low-quality available evidence highlights the need for well-defined NC-APS populations in future studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020210674.
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.