SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of performance of the Sapporo criteria, the revised Sapporo criteria, and the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria for patients with antiphospholipid syndrome.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) lacks systematic comparative evidence for the diagnostic performance of its three classification criteria, namely the 1999 Sapporo criteria, 2006 Revised criteria, and 2023 ACR criteria. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the performance of the three criteria via a systematic review and network meta-analysis, providing an evidence-based basis for their clinical and research application. Methods: Following the PRISMA-NMA statement, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to October 13, 2025, for studies evaluating the performance of the three APS classification criteria. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted with Stata 15.0 to calculate the relative sensitivity and specificity. Network meta-analysis was performed using RStudio 4.3.0 to analyze sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and S index, and rank the diagnostic performance of the three criteria. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using the I² index and Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test, respectively. Results: A total of 7 eligible studies involving 8 research cohorts (2,214 APS patients, 3,908 subjects) were included. In the direct pairwise meta-analysis of the 2006 Revised criteria versus the 2023 ACR criteria, the 2023 ACR criteria showed significantly lower sensitivity (relative sensitivity 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72-0.89; P < 0.01) and significantly higher specificity (relative specificity 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05-1.08; P < 0.01) compared with the 2006 Revised criteria. Network meta-analysis indicated that the 2006 Revised criteria had the highest sensitivity (0.86, 95% CI: 0.83-0.88) and S index (1.92, 95% CI: 0.33-3.00) among the three; the 2023 ACR criteria had the highest specificity (0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98) and DOR (114.66, 95% CI: 75.46-168.19). Conclusions: The 1999 Sapporo criteria have limited clinical application value due to relatively poor diagnostic performance. The 2006 Revised Sapporo criteria have advantages in diagnostic sensitivity and comprehensive diagnostic performance (S index). The 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria exhibit superior specificity, making it well-suited for clinical research and as an adjunctive diagnostic tool for patients with non-classical APS manifestations. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251074199.
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.