ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025
Lupus Anticoagulant Testing for Diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Perspective Informed by Local Practice.
Article 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 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.
- Design and Implementation of an Automated Interpretation Algorithm for Lupus Anticoagulant Functional Testing.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based identification of concomitant stroke and prognostic analysis in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome: a retrospective study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment for the presence or absence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) represents a common investigation in hemostasis laboratories. In particular, LA represents one of the laboratory criteria for the diagnosis of definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The other laboratory criteria are the solid phase assays (anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2Glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antibodies of IgG and IgM isotypes). Current International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidance recommends testing LA by at least two tests based on different principles, with the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) being preferred. Additional assays may be used in addition, or instead of these assays in particular situations. For example, aPTT and dRVVT assays are very sensitive to the presence of various anticoagulants, and this may lead to false-positive identification of LA. This is particularly problematic in the age of the DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants), which are now the leading anticoagulants in use worldwide. We review recent literature on LA testing as well as our local practice to provide an update on this common test procedure. Our experience should be useful for laboratories struggling with LA interpretation for diagnosis or exclusion of APS.
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.