ReviewRMD open2025
2023 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome: more lights rise but shade remains.
Review in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder for which there are no universally accepted diagnostic criteria, although classification criteria do exist, as is the case with most autoimmune diseases. Until 2023, the 2006 Sydney classification criteria were in use. Although originally intended for research purposes, these criteria have often been employed in clinical practice as a substitute for diagnostic guidelines, thereby conflating classification with diagnosis. In July 2023, ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology convened a panel of experts to revise these criteria. The newly published classification criteria are explicitly intended for research use only. They place a strong emphasis on specificity-99%-but this comes at the expense of sensitivity-84%. The updated criteria encompass six clinical domains and two laboratory domains. Notably, the inclusion of new clinical features, such as thrombocytopenia, cardiac valve involvement and microvascular thrombosis, has broadened patient inclusion and, indirectly, aided the diagnostic process. However, a significant proportion of patients with suspected antiphospholipid antibody-related conditions may no longer meet the criteria for APS classification. In real-world settings, this could result in these individuals being denied appropriate management, thereby increasing their risk of subsequent thrombotic or obstetric events, as has already been demonstrated.This manuscript examines the advantages and limitations of the new clinical and laboratory domains, considering their implications not only from a research but also from a clinical perspective, 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.