Cited by 33Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Influence of anticardiolipin and anti‐β2 glycoprotein I antibody cutoff values on antiphospholipid syndrome classification

Open access
Vanoverschelde, Laura, Kelchtermans, Hilde, Musial, Jacek, de Laat, Bas, Devreese, Katrien M.J.·2019·Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2 glycoprotein I (aβ2GPI) immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM antibodies are 2 of the 3 laboratory criteria for classification of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The threshold for clinically relevant levels of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) for the diagnosis of APS remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variation in cutoffs as determined in different clinical laboratories based on the results of a questionnaire as well as to determine the optimal method for cutoff establishment based on a clinical approach. METHODS: The study included samples from 114 patients with thrombotic APS, 138 patients with non-APS thrombosis, 138 patients with autoimmune disease, and 183 healthy controls. aCL and aβ2GPI IgG/IgM antibodies were measured at 1 laboratory using 4 commercial assays. Assay-specific cutoff values for aPL were obtained by determining 95th and 99th percentiles of 120 compared to 200 normal controls by different statistical methods. RESULTS: Normal reference value data showed a nonparametric distribution. Higher cutoff values were found when calculated as 99th rather than 95th percentiles. These values also showed a stronger association with thrombosis. The use of 99th percentile cutoffs reduced the chance of false positivity but at the same time reduced sensitivity. The decrease in sensitivity was higher than the gain in specificity when 99th percentiles were calculated by methods wherein no outliers were eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: We present cutoff values for aPL determined by different statistical methods. The 99th percentile cutoff value seemed more specific. However, our findings indicate the need for standardized statistical criteria to calculate 99th percentile cutoff reference values.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rth2.12207

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Approved Guideline ‐ Third Edition CLSI document C28‐A3. Defining, establishing and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vanoverschelde, L., Kelchtermans, H., Musial, J., de Laat, B., & Devreese, K. M. J.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Devreese, Katrien M.J.
Venue
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
515-527
ISSN
2475-0379 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947464917
Cited by
33
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Bio-Rad Laboratories
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
antiphospholipid syndrome, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, false positivity, sensitivity and specificity, reference values, assay standardization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review