Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972504›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of laboratory hematology2025

Activated Protein C Resistance Testing: An Update From Australasia/Asia-Pacific.

Emmanuel J Favaloro, Sandya Arunachalam, Elysse Dean, Mahzuza Salwa, Monica Ahuja, Lynne Connelly, Kent Chapman, Ronny Vong, Leonardo Pasalic

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Activated Protein C Resistance Testing: An Update From Australasia/Asia-Pacific.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emmanuel J FavaloroDepartment of Haematology, Sydney Centres for Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), NSW Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2103-1661
Sandya ArunachalamRCPAQAP Haematology, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Elysse DeanRCPAQAP Haematology, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Mahzuza SalwaRCPAQAP Haematology, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Monica AhujaDepartment of Haematology, NSW Health Pathology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Lynne ConnellyDepartment of Haematology, NSW Health Pathology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Kent ChapmanDepartment of Haematology, NSW Health Pathology, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Ronny VongDepartment of Haematology, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), NSW Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Leonardo PasalicDepartment of Haematology, Sydney Centres for Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), NSW Health Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8237-6743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionActivated protein C resistance (APCR) represents a risk factor for thrombosis and is usually due to factor V Leiden (FVL). Clinicians may order either test (i.e., APCR or FVL) to help assess 'thrombophilia' in patients who present with thrombosis. APCR testing is usually achieved using clot-based assays, whereas FVL is assessed by genetic testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

methodsWe report updated findings for APCR testing in our geographic region, in part using recent data from the RCPAQAP, an international external quality assessment (EQA) program, with some 50-60 participants for APCR testing over the past decade. Data have been updated to cover the past 13 years (2010-2023 inclusive), with four samples assessed each year, but with a primary focus on new data from 2020 to 2023 inclusive. In addition, data for APCR testing over several years from four large tertiary-level hospital laboratories have been assessed following a recent change in instrumentation and haemostasis methods.

resultsEQA data continue to show variable performance in both numerical values and their interpretation for APCR testing, with certain methods providing more consistently correct findings than others. In addition, participant interpretation of their own numerical values and transcription errors seem problematic. Finally, the change in recent laboratory testing has also evidenced local improvements.

conclusionAPCR assays and testing laboratories continue to show variability in performance, with two methods (Pefakit and Staclot) showing the best performance overall. Targeted education may be of benefit, as most of the errors appear to originate from a small proportion of laboratories.

Indexed as

Activated Protein C ResistanceAsiaAustralasiaAustraliaBlood Coagulation TestsFactor VGenetic TestingHumansThrombosisFactor Vfactor V Leidenactivated partial thromboplastin timeactivated protein C resistanceassay variabilityexternal quality assessmentfactor V Leidenlaboratory testingproficiency testingRussell viper venom time

Identifiers

PMID39972504
PMCPMC12239697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.