ReviewHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2025
The Mirage of Factor Equivalence: Examining the Complexities of Non-Factor Therapies in Haemophilia.
Review in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 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.
- Laboratory Challenges in the Era of Novel Haemophilia Therapies.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- The Mirage of Factor Equivalence: Examining the Complexities of Non-Factor Therapies in Haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis article provides a critical analysis of the 'factor equivalence' concept as applied to non-factor therapies (NFTs) for haemophilia, highlighting its limitations and clinical implications. Although factor equivalence estimates serve as a comparative tool for evaluating pro-coagulant effects across different therapies, they may fail to accurately represent the true haemostatic potential or clinical efficacy due to the diverse mechanisms of action of different molecules and patient-specific factors.
aimThe article challenges the widespread adoption of factor equivalence as a universal benchmark to quantify the haemostatic potential of NFTs. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionIt advocates for patient- and context-specific laboratory assessments that reflect each therapy's unique pharmacological profile. This approach is particularly relevant to enhance personalised treatment strategies, especially in high-risk situations such as surgery or severe breakthrough bleeding, thereby optimising the use of novel haemostatic therapies.
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.