ReviewInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
How I Investigate Borderline Prolonged aPTT: An Integrated Laboratory Approach to Mixing Studies and Factor Analysis.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Borderline prolongation of routine clotting assays-particularly the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-is a common interpretative challenge in laboratory hematology. These reproducible but mildly prolonged results often lie just beyond the upper reference limit and can trigger unnecessary follow-up, delays, or misinterpretation. Conventional tools such as 1:1 mixing studies may appear corrective due to dilutional masking of weak inhibitors, residual anticoagulants, or low-grade lupus anticoagulant (LA) activity, especially in assays with limited sensitivity. In our laboratory, borderline prolongations prompt a structured, hypothesis-driven workflow that escalates interpretative resolution in sequential steps. We begin with verification of analytical validity and exclusion of confounders (e.g., DOACs, pre-analytical errors), then apply conventional mixing studies interpreted via quantitative correction indices (e.g., Rosner, percent correction). When results remain indeterminate or discordant, we escalate to enhanced mixing ratios (e.g., 4:1, 1:4), followed by factor assays and dilutional analysis including parallelism assessment. Here, we outline an integrated decision-support framework for investigating borderline aPTT prolongation. The framework aligns traditional and enhanced mixing strategies with factor-level interpretation into a coherent, stepwise pathway featuring explicit stop-go points. It is intended for use in advanced or referral coagulation laboratories and emphasizes interpretative rigor over binary thresholds. By optimizing existing tools within a layered interpretative structure, this approach seeks to reduce false reassurance and enhance clarity in borderline aPTT interpretation.
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.