ArticleClinical rheumatology2024
Loss of opportunities in the diagnosis and treatment of primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS): from theory to reality.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complement activation and altered fibrin clot properties in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: impact on thromboembolism and pregnancy.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives(I) To identify and measure the clinical consequences of a delayed diagnosis in patients with primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS), in terms of time and events associated to antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and (II) to evaluate the impact of their treatment status on perinatal outcomes, before and after diagnosis.
methodsThis retrospective multicentre study included 99 POAPS women who were separated in two groups of timelines based on their diagnostic status: group 1: women who met the clinical criteria for POAPS; group 2: included the same patients from group 1 since they meet the laboratory criteria for APS. In group 1, we assessed the following variables: obstetric events, thrombotic events and time (years) to diagnosis of APS. We also compared perinatal outcomes between patients in group 1 vs. group 2. Women in group 2 were treated with standard of care for POAPS. Simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
resultsRegarding the impact of the delay on diagnosis, a total of 87 APS-related events were recorded: 46 miscarriages, 32 foetal losses and 9 premature deliveries before the 34th week due to preeclampsia, and one thrombosis. The estimated rate of preventable events was 20.58 per year/100 patients. The mean diagnostic delay time was 4.27 years. When we compared both groups during pregnancy, we found that patients in group 1 (no treatment) had a higher association with pregnancy losses [OR = 6.71 (95% CI: 3.59-12.55), p < 0.0001].
conclusionOur findings emphasize the negative impact of POAPS underdiagnosis on patient health and the critical importance of a timely intervention to improve pregnancy outcomes. Key Points •Our study shows the relevance of underdiagnosis on primary obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (POAPS). •These patients presented a high risk of APS-related events with each passing year. •Shorter diagnostic delay time was observed in the reference centres.
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.