ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2023
Thrombotic risk assessment in antiphospholipid syndrome: do noncriteria antibodies contribute?
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2023. 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.
- IgM Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Prevalence, Clinical Associations, and Diagnostic Implications-A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: In this cross-sectional study, it was aimed to test the predictive value of noncriteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in addition to the global antiphospholipid syndrome score (GAPSS) in predicting vascular thrombosis (VT) in a cohort of patients with APS and aPL (+) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Material and methods: This study included 50 patients with primary APS, 68 with SLE/APS, and 52 with aPL (+) SLE who were classified according to VT as VT ± pregnancy morbidity (PM), PM only or aPL (+) SLE. Antiphospholipid serology consisting of lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) immunoglobulin G (IgG)/IgM/IgA, antibeta2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) IgG/IgM/IgA, antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM and antidomain-I (aDI) IgG was determined for each patient. The GAPSS and adjusted GAPSS (aGAPSS) were calculated for each patient, as previously defined. Logistic regression analysis was carried out with thrombosis as the dependent variable and high GAPSS, aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG as independent variables. Results: The mean GAPSS and aGAPSS of the study population were 11.6 ± 4.4 and 9.6 ± 3.8. Both the VT ± PM APS (n = 105) and PM only APS (n = 13) groups had significantly higher GAPSS and aGAPSS values compared to the aPL (+) SLE (n = 52) group. The patients with recurrent thrombosis had higher aGAPSS but not GAPSS than those with a single thrombotic event. The computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that a GAPSS ≥13 and aGAPSS ≥10 had the best predictive values for thrombosis. Logistic regression analysis including a GAPSS ≥13, aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG showed that none of the factors other than a GAPSS ≥13 could predict thrombosis. Conclusion: Both the GAPSS and aGAPSS successfully predict the thrombotic risk in aPL (+) patients and aCL IgA, aβ2GPI IgA, and aDI IgG do not contribute to high a GAPSS or aGAPSS.
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.