ReviewResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2023
Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand disease in the age of the new guidelines: considerations based on geography and resources.
Review in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2023. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms and acquired von Willebrand syndrome: only pertinent at diagnosis?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Beyond a century of discovery: the global and persistent burden of underdiagnosis in von Willebrand disease.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
- Von Willebrand disease diagnosis: from complexity to simplicity.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Comparison of genotypes and phenotypes for von Willebrand factor gene variants using Japanese genome database.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2025Article
- Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in children.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- A Review of Desmopressin Use in Bleeding Disorders: An Unsung Hero?Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Misleading antigenic von Willebrand factor levels in acquired von Willebrand syndrome secondary to monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.International journal of hematology · 2025Article
- Innovative Diagnostic Solutions in Hemostasis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of an automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein IbM activity assay compared with 3 alternative von Willebrand factor activity 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
von Willebrand disease (VWD) is considered the most common bleeding disorder and arises from deficiency and/or defect in the adhesive plasma protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). Diagnosis of VWD requires clinical assessment and is facilitated by laboratory testing. Several guidelines for VWD diagnosis exist, with the latest American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia 2021 guidelines presenting 11 recommendations, some of which have drawn controversy. In the current narrative review, we provide additional context around difficulties in laboratory diagnosis/exclusion/typing of VWD, with a focus on developing countries/resource-poor settings. In particular, there are many variations in assay methodology, and some methods express high assay variability and poor low-level VWF sensitivity that compromises their utility. Although we favor an initial 4-test assay panel, comprising factor (F) VIII coagulant activity, VWF antigen, VWF glycoprotein Ib binding (VWF:GPIbR or VWF:GPIbM favored over VWF Ristocetin cofactor) and VWF collagen binding, we also provide strategies for laboratories only able to incorporate an initial 3-test assay panel, as favored by the latest guidelines, to improve diagnostic accuracy.
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.