ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Non-Criteria Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Myth or Reality?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The diagnostic and prognostic values of non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Clinical features of non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a retrospective cohort study on antibody-based risk classification and pregnancy outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- B Cell Tolerance and Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women with adverse pregnancy outcomes suggestive of obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (OAPS), but not fulfilling clinical and/or laboratory international classification criteria, are increasingly recognized both in clinical practice and in the literature. This entity is termed non-criteria OAPS (NC-OAPS). It includes clinical scenarios such as two unexplained pregnancy losses, three non-consecutive pregnancy losses, late pre-eclampsia/eclampsia/signs of placental insufficiency, or recurrent implantation failure, as well as positive low-titers of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) and non-classical aPLs. To address the NC-OAPS heterogeneity, a nomenclature proposal was developed. In recent years, retrospective and prospective cohort studies have been designed to clarify the characteristics and outcomes of the different subsets of NC-OAPS. In general, the studies support that NC-OAPS may benefit from treatment with antithrombotic, anticoagulant and/or immunomodulator agents, but several considerations must be made on the robustness and nuances of the scientific evidence. The objective of this review is to critically analyze the available evidence supporting the diagnosis of NC-OAPS, categorize its subsets, and evaluate the impact of treatment strategies on its outcome. We also remark on questions that are still unanswered, such as the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria or treatment protocols.
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.