ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Platelet dense granule defect: experience in the French population.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Markers for platelet function testing by flow cytometry: where are we now? A clinical perspective.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Platelet dense granule defect (DGD) is a frequent inherited disorder that is underdiagnosed due to its complexity and poor standardization of diagnostic tools. Objectives: To assess the prevalence of DGD in a large real-life French cohort of patients with an abnormal bleeding score. Methods: Patients with abnormal International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool scores, but no deficiency of coagulation or von Willebrand factor, and platelet counts > 100 × 10 Results: Of the 119 patients included at the inclusion visit, 66 had at least 1 abnormal dense granule test, including 19 with ≤2. Among the 54 patients seen at confirmatory visit , 40 had confirmed abnormalities, including 8 with at least 2 abnormal tests. Depending on diagnostic criteria, DGD prevalence ranged from 7.5% (≥2 abnormalities) to 37.4% (≥1 abnormality). Among 46 patients included at confirmatory visit, 30 had a confirmed DGD, including 11 with at least 2 abnormalities. No significant differences in age, sex, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool scores, or bleeding history were observed between patients with or without DGD. Conclusion: DGD diagnosis in clinical practice depends on the criteria used. Standardized guidelines and repeated testing are essential for improving diagnostic accuracy.
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.