ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Evaluation of an automated von Willebrand factor glycoprotein IbM activity assay compared with 3 alternative von Willebrand factor activity assays.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To overcome deficiencies of the traditional von Willebrand factor (VWF) ristocetin cofactor activity assay (VWF:RCo), several automated assays for VWF platelet-binding activity have been developed. Information on the performance of these assays and their diagnostic utility remains limited. Objectives: To validate the VWF:glycoprotein IbM assay INNOVANCE VWF Ac and compare it with an automated VWF:RCo assay as well as with an automated assay and a manual VWF:Ab assay and to generate reference ranges and analyze reproducibility of the VWF:glycoprotein IbM assay. Methods: Clinical sites enrolled healthy subjects and patients representing the intended use population; VWF activity assays were performed, and results were analyzed. The performance of the INNOVANCE VWF Ac assay was also compared between the BCS XP System and the CS-2500 and CS-5100 analyzers. Results: The INNOVANCE VWF Ac assay correlated well with the VWF:RCo assay and the automated HemosIL VWF:Ab assay, with Pearson coefficients of >.9 and a predicted bias of ≤5.0 IU/dL at VWF levels of 30 IU/dL and ≤5.8 IU/dL at the levels of 50 IU/dL, but correlation and bias were not as good when compared with the REAADS manual VWF:Ab assay. Reference ranges observed for healthy subjects correlated well with previously published findings. Reproducibility of the INNOVANCE VWF Ac assay on the BCS XP System and the CS analyzers was excellent, as was correlation among devices. Conclusion: The characteristics of the INNOVANCE VWF Ac assay regarding comparability with other VWF activity assays, reference ranges, and precision support the use of this assay for evaluation of patients with concern for von Willebrand disease.
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.