ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Revisiting clinical scoring tools for the diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP).
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare, life-threatening hematologic emergency that leads to increased complexities and mortality due to diagnostic delays. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) along with immunosuppressants is life-saving in cases with severe ADAMTS13 deficiency. Routine ADAMTS13 activity testing is unavailable in many diagnostic centers. Clinical heterogeneity also complicates the early differentiation of TTP from TTP-like syndromes. To critically examine the efficacy of contemporary clinical scoring systems used in the prediction of severe ADAMTS13 deficiency and guide early TPE initiation in the absence of ADAMTS13 activity testing. A literature search was made in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception till December 2025. Only those studies evaluating PLASMIC, French, and Bentley scores in comparison with standard ADAMTS13 activity assays were included. Existing clinical scoring tools demonstrate high sensitivity in selected cohorts; their real-world utility is limited by modest specificity, population-dependent variability, and misclassification in complex clinical settings such as critical illness, pregnancy, malignancy, renal dysfunction, and old age. Clinical scoring systems facilitate early decision-making, but insufficient as stand-alone diagnostic tools. Overestimation of TTP risk may lead to unnecessary TPE exposure and increased healthcare cost. Emerging strategies, including rapid ADAMTS13 assays, biomarkers, and machine-learning approaches, may permit early TTP diagnosis and prompt management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42629530What 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.