ReviewBlood advances2025
Diagnosis of von Willebrand disease.
Review in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disproportionate Subgaleal Hemorrhage in an Infant: Abuse or Bleeding Disorder?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Platelet Function Disorders: Glanzmann Thrombasthenia and Type 2 Von Willebrand Disease.Cureus · 2026Article
- An Ex Vivo Pharmacodynamic Study of KN057, a Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor Neutralizing Antibody, in Plasma Samples From Patients With Haemophilia or VWD3.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
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
abstractvon Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, resulting from a deficiency and/or dysfunction of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Since its first description 100 years ago, the diagnosis of VWD has evolved due to advancements in laboratory diagnostic tests and clinical guidelines and recommendations. There are 3 established diagnostic criteria for VWD: a personal history of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding, a family history of bleeding, and reduced VWF levels. Over the years, the diagnosis of VWD has been challenging, due to a lack of consensus and barriers to achieving an accurate and timely diagnosis. In 2021 evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were developed. These guidelines have provided clarity and consensus but there continues to be opposing views and challenges. Additionally, there remain barriers to achieving a diagnosis of VWD that need to be addressed.
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.