Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41347994›Full record

ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2025

Diagnosis of bleeding disorder of unknown cause: how many tests are enough to diagnose BDUC?

Maria N Avgeropoulos, Paula D James

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Maria N AvgeropoulosQueen's University, Department of Medicine, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Paula D JamesQueen's University, Department of Medicine, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The challenges associated with achieving a clear diagnosis in patients with a suspected bleeding disorder are evident in those who end up categorized as bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), which can contribute to uncertainty in management and suboptimal care. BDUC is a diagnosis of exclusion, with nondiagnostic first-line hemostatic laboratory testing not meeting the criteria of an inherited mild bleeding disorder, despite the patient having a positive bleeding phenotype and/or positive family history. An abnormal bleeding phenotype, an important diagnostic criterion for BDUC, should be assessed through the use of standardized bleeding assessment tools, allowing for the quantification of bleeding symptoms as well as through clinical gestalt and judgment. The first-line laboratory workup must include a minimum set of hemostasis assays with normal results, including complete blood count, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen, von Willebrand disease testing, factor VIII, platelet aggregation testing, and, if available, platelet-dense granule assessment. Following normal results of initial laboratory testing, specialized tests may be ordered based on examination in addition to the patient's clinical history, including measurement of individual clotting factor assays to identify other rare bleeding causes, and in rarer cases, additional platelet assays and fibrinolysis assays may be performed. Genetic testing involving targeted genomic sequencing of known genes associated with bleeding and platelet dysfunction is not currently part of the standard line of care, primarily due to the cost and low diagnostic yield.

Indexed as

Blood Coagulation DisordersHemorrhagic DisordersBlood Coagulation TestsHemorrhageHumans

Identifiers

PMID41347994
PMCPMC12891331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.