ReviewSeminars in thrombosis and hemostasis2026
Decoding Clot Waveform Analysis: Toward Better Understanding and Harmonization.
Review in Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: Clot waveform analysis (CWA) extends routine coagulation assays (activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT] and prothrombin time [PT]) by incorporating continuous optical monitoring to generate kinetic profiles of clot formation. This method provides both qualitative and quantitative information on hemostasis, with increasing evidence for its clinical utility in detecting factor deficiencies and characterizing thrombotic and bleeding disorders. Despite the growing body of evidence, translation of CWA into routine clinical practice remains limited. Abstract: This review identifies three principal barriers: (1) variability arising from differences in optical detection methods (absorbance vs. transmittance), (2) interreagent variation even within the same analyzer platform, and (3) lack of a clear distinction between standard CWA, performed with commercially available reagents, and modified CWA, incorporating in-house adjustments. To address these challenges, we encourage adopting distinct nomenclature for detection modalities (CWA-A; A for absorbance and CWA-T; T for transmittance), establishing standardized reporting requirements including reagent and platform details, and establishing quality assurance frameworks for CWA. Abstract: Standardization of terminology and reporting will enhance reproducibility, enable cross-study comparisons, and accelerate the clinical translation of CWA from the laboratory bench to the bedside.
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.