ArticleHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2023
The dos, don'ts, and nuances of thrombophilia testing.
Article in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemostatic changes following COVID-19 vaccination: Do they promote a pro-thrombotic state?Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Article
- Portal Vein Thrombosis in Patients Without Cirrhosis: Current Practical Approaches and Treatment Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prevalence and factors associated with high-risk thrombophilia: a single-center cross-sectional study of 3550 patients at a tertiary Thrombosis Centre in Switzerland.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considerable progress has been made in elucidating genetic and biologic risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite being able to identify heritable defects in a substantial proportion of patients with VTE, testing has not, in general, proven useful in management. Despite efforts to reduce inappropriate testing, it often falls to the hematologist to consult on patients having undergone thrombophilia testing. Through a series of cases, we discuss how D-dimer testing can be helpful in VTE recurrence risk stratification in younger women as well as how to approach patients with persistently elevated D-dimer levels in the absence of thrombosis. While elevated factor VIII coagulant activity levels are a significant risk factor for a first episode of VTE, its biologic basis is not fully understood, and studies have not shown it to be a useful predictor of recurrence. Abnormal results of genetic tests for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase or plasminogen activator 1 promoter polymorphisms may be encountered, which carry little if any thrombotic risk and should never be ordered. We also discuss protein S deficiency, the most difficult of the hereditary thrombophilias to diagnose due to a wider "normal" range in the general population as compared with protein C, the presence of both free and bound forms in plasma, and the characteristics of the various assays in use. We also present a rare type of protein C deficiency that can be missed by functional assays using an amidolytic rather than a clotting end point.
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.