ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of two algorithms of APTT-based lupus anticoagulant assay, two Dilute Russell viper venom time reagents, and silica clotting time.
Article in PloS one, 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
Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are heterogeneous antiphospholipid antibodies that interfere with phospholipid-dependent coagulation assays, resulting in considerable variability among detection methods. Although international guidelines recommend a stepwise approach incorporating screening, mixing, and confirmatory testing, integrated strategies omitting routine mixing studies are widely used. Different percentile-based cutoffs have been proposed for defining LA positivity.We retrospectively analyzed 135 citrated plasma samples requested for LA testing. Five LA detection approaches were evaluated: 4 integrated assays and 1 activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT)-based approach following the ISTH-recommended stepwise algorithm with a mixing study. The integrated assays comprised silica clotting time, dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) using 2 different reagent systems, and an APTT-based assay. Precision studies and reference intervals were established, and LA positivity rates were compared using 97.5th and 99th percentile cutoffs. Inter-assay agreement and associations with anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) antiphospholipid antibodies were assessed. LA positivity rates varied across procedures (19.3%-35.6%) at the 97.5th percentile. Application of the 99th percentile decreased positivity for dRVVT-HemosIL and APTT-based assays. Positivity increased at the 97.5th percentile in patients tested according to ISTH indications, with minimal impact in noncompliant cases. Inter-assay agreement ranged from fair to substantial and was influenced by assay type and cutoff definition. APTT-based assays showed the strongest associations with aCL and aβ2GPI antibodies. LA detection is strongly influenced by assay selection and cutoff strategy. Positivity rate-based evaluation provides a practical framework for comparing LA assays in laboratory practice, particularly in the absence of a reference standard.
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.