ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and Implementation of an Automated Interpretation Algorithm for Lupus Anticoagulant Functional Testing.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of a Novel Lupus Anticoagulant Activity Assay Unaffected by Anticoagulants.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- A Case of Childhood Lupus Anticoagulant-Hypoprothrombinemia Syndrome with Diagnostic and Therapeutic Insight.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Lupus Anticoagulant Testing for Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Perspective Informed by Local Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Update on the Laboratory Diagnosis of Lupus Anticoagulant: Current Challenges and Clinical Involvement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prolongated Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) in Pediatric Patients before Surgery-Crying Wolf: Lupus (Anticoagulant) Does Not Always Threaten Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Determining Thrombogenicity: Using a Modified Thrombin Generation Assay to Detect the Level of Thrombotic Event Risk in Lupus Anticoagulant-Positive Patients.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Rare inherited autosomal bleeding disorders in women: sex-related bleeding, pregnancy and delivery. A narrative review.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangueReview
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.
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). Lupus anticoagulant (LA) is one of the three laboratory parameters (the others being antibodies to either cardiolipin or β2-glycoprotein I) that defines this rare but potentially devastating condition. For the search for aCL and aβ2-GP-I, traditionally measured with immunological solid-phase assays (ELISA), several different assays and detection techniques are currently available, thus making these tests relatively reliable and widespread. On the other hand, LA detection is based on functional coagulation procedures that are characterized by poor standardization, difficulties in interpreting the results, and interference by several drugs commonly used in the clinical settings in which LA search is appropriate. This article aims to review the current state of the art and the challenges that clinicians and laboratories incur in the detection of LA.
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.