ArticleThrombosis journal2022
Laboratory evaluation of a new integrative assay to phenotype plasma fibrinolytic system.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fibrinolytic profile depends on disease severity in pediatric patients with cirrhosis: illustration by 2 different plasma-based fibrinolysis assays.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no universal and standardized test available to phenotype plasma fibrinolytic system.
aimsOur main aims were to evaluate the performances of the 'global fibrinolysis capacity' assay (GFC) performed with the Lysis Timer® instrument, and to study the influence of some preanalytical conditions.
methodEuglobulin clot lysis time (ECLT) and GFC were performed under several preanalytical conditions.
resultsGFC showed satisfactory intra- and inter-run precision. Frozen controls and reagents showed stability over the studied period. There was no statistically significant difference between GFC assessed in plasma samples processed at 4 °C or at 20 °C. GFC assessed with frozen-thawed plasma samples was prolonged when compared to fresh samples (p = 0.014). The centrifugation scheme had no influence on PAI-1 activity levels, GFC and ECLT. Reference interval for GFC ranges from 29.3 (C I90% = 26.9-31.9) to 49.5 (90% CI = 45.9-52.2) minutes. In addition, a preliminary study in 40 healthy volunteers and 43 adult patients referred for investigation of a bleeding disorder was conducted to compare GFC and ECLT assays in their ability to classify samples with shortened or prolonged clot lysis times. Disagreements between ECLT and GFC were observed for 23 samples (out of 83), most of them minor.
conclusionGFC is suitable and convenient for a broad clinical use and can be performed with frozen-thawed plasma samples. Unlike ECLT, GFC is designed to take into account the balance between inhibitors and activators of the fibrinolytic system and could detect both hypo- and hyperfibrinolytic states. Whether it is as suitable as or even better than ECLT to detect a bleeding tendency due to a hyperactive fibrinolytic system deserves to be properly investigated.
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.