ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
2023 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: good for patients or good for papers?
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: more lights rise but shade remains.RMD open · 2025Review
- Lupus Anticoagulant Testing for Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Perspective Informed by Local Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a new set of robust criteria, including clinical and laboratory criteria, to enhance the identification of patients in clinical studies and laboratory research. Based on a scoring system, patients accruing at least 3 points in the clinical and laboratory domains fulfill the classification criteria for APS. They are meant to define homogeneous patient groups for research. They are not to be used in a clinical setting for diagnosis to identify every patient with APS, where it is essential to include those with an atypical clinical presentation and/or antiphospholipid antibodies laboratory test result. These criteria have provoked a debate among workers in the field. Without nuance, the classification criteria cannot be used for diagnosing APS and may be a potential pitfall for clinicians when no difference is made between "classification" and "diagnostic" criteria. Complementing the American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria with the recently available International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidance on laboratory detection and interpretation of antiphospholipid antibodies for diagnosis of APS has added value. It ensures rigorous research that leads to improvement of patient management and optimal clinical care in routine practice.
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.