ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design and Implementation of an Automated Interpretation Algorithm for Lupus Anticoagulant Functional Testing.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Laboratory Identification of Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) Using Different Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) Assays.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The laboratory tests for lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection comprise complex and multistep coagulation testing procedures. There is no established gold standard assay or direct comparison of algorithms as recommended by different guidelines. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the LA detection performance of different laboratory algorithms suggested by the existing guidelines. Methods: The routine LA test data of 1801 plasma samples, including 188 LA-positive and 1613 LA-negative samples, were re-evaluated by applying the algorithms recommended by existing guidelines and were interpreted using various methods. Diagnostic performance indices for each LA detection algorithm were compared with those of the other algorithms. The efficacies of the different interpretation methods were analyzed to determine a suitable interpretation methodology for each assay. Results: The diagnostic performance for detecting LA varied by the algorithm and method of interpretation used. All laboratory algorithms displayed exceptional diagnostic performance with all diagnostic parameters of >90.0%. Nearly perfect agreement was observed in all algorithms when compared to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2014 guideline interpreted by normalized screen-to-confirm ratio (NSCR) and mixing test-specific cutoff (MTC), as a reference assay (Cohen's kappa coefficient, >0.90 [range, 0.94-1.00]). A combination of the index of circulating anticoagulant and NSCR was optimal for interpreting the activated partial thromboplastin time-based test, whereas a combination of the MTC and NSCR was suitable for the diluted Russell's viper venom time-based test. Conclusion: All laboratory algorithms showed equivalent diagnostic performance. Establishing the best method of interpretation for each assay is recommended to improve LA detection performance.
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.