ArticleInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
Real-World Performance of the STic Expert HIT Kit and the Diagnostic Dilemma of Borderline Results in Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia.
Article in International journal of laboratory hematology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid immunoassays are widely used for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). The STic Expert HIT kit is commonly employed, but its diagnostic accuracy in unselected, real-world populations requires robust evaluation against an appropriate reference standard. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of the STic Expert HIT kit using the heparin-induced platelet aggregation test (PAT) as the comparator.
methodsThis cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted from January 2023 to April 2025. A consecutive series of 320 patients with suspected HIT underwent parallel testing with the STic Expert HIT kit (index test) and PAT (comparator). The 4T score was calculated prospectively for all patients. Borderline visual results on the STic kit were classified according to epidemiological recommendations: as false negative if PAT-positive and false positive if PAT-negative. Diagnostic accuracy measures-sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios-were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The study is reported in accordance with the STARD 2015 checklist.
resultsAmong 320 consecutive patients (median age 45.6 years; range 0.19-89), the prevalence of PAT-confirmed HIT was 16.3% (52/320). Following the STARD guidelines, the STic Expert HIT kit demonstrated a sensitivity of 57.5% (95% CI: 42.2-71.6) and specificity of 92.5% (95% CI: 88.8-95.1). The positive predictive value was 58.8% (95% CI: 46.2-70.4) and negative predictive value was 92.1% (95% CI: 89.6-94.1). The positive likelihood ratio was 7.67 (95% CI: 5.10-11.52) and negative likelihood ratio was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.32-0.66). The area under the ROC curve was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.83). Borderline results constituted 6.6% (21/320) of tests; of these, 33.3% (7/21) were true positives and 66.7% (14/21) were false positives.
conclusionIn this large, real-world diagnostic accuracy study, the STic Expert HIT kit demonstrated limited sensitivity for HIT diagnosis. The test is not suitable for ruling out HIT due to its suboptimal sensitivity. Borderline results are common and require integration with pre-test probability. These findings highlight the need for confirmatory functional testing in suspected HIT, particularly in high-probability settings.
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.