ArticlePloS one2026
Identifying diagnostic testing gaps for antiphospholipid syndrome within a single healthcare system.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) is a rare disease with significant morbidity and the possibility of mortality. While there are no established diagnostic criteria for use in clinical settings, there is a large body of global research organized by the American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) into accepted research guidelines, developed for identifying probable APS cases. The research guidelines were used in this study as a surrogate approach for evaluating diagnostic testing patterns, with the aim of identifying potential gaps in patient evaluation for APS in clinical settings. For this study, suggested testing for APS characterization included IgG (Immunoglobulin G) and IgM (Immunoglobulin M) anti-cardiolipin antibodies; IgG and IgM anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I antibodies; and Lupus Anticoagulant. This retrospective cross-sectional study identified patients from the electronic medical records of a regional health system with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes for APS-associated conditions, signs, symptoms, and/or testing collected for antiphospholipid antibodies in selected medical and surgical specialty locations, from 01/01/2011 to 12/31/2020. These data were used to assess how closely the clinical testing patterns followed the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria for laboratory evaluation. The data showed that 80.70% of 16679 patients with antiphospholipid antibody tests collected did not include all antiphospholipid antibody testing described in 2023 ACR/EULAR research criteria guidelines. These findings may represent common suboptimal ordering practices in evaluations for APS, highlighting the need for peer comparison and the development of future clinical laboratory guidance to support more complete assessment for APS.
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.