14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies Task Force. Report on antiphospholipid syndrome laboratory diagnostics and trends
Abstract
Current classification criteria for definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) require the use of three laboratory assays to detect antiphospholipid antibodies (aCL, anti-β2GPI and LA) in the presence of at least one of the two major clinical manifestations (i.e. thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity) of the syndrome. However, several other autoantibodies shown to be directed to other proteins or their complex with phospholipids have been proposed to be relevant to APS but their clinical utility and their diagnostic value remains elusive. This report summarizes the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the "APS Task Force 3-Laboratory Diagnostics and Trends" meeting that took place during the 14th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies (APLA 2013, September 18-21, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
International External Quality Assessment programs have shown significant inter-laboratory variation, especially for weaker LAC samples.
“International External Quality Assessment programs have shown significant inter-laboratory variation, especially for weaker LAC samples. 2,4,7”
From Clinical Relevance of Isolated Lupus Anticoagulant Positivity in Patients with Thrombotic Antiphospholipid Syndrome (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 134 · Cited by 266
- Authors
- Bertolaccini, M. L., Amengual, O., Andreoli, L., Atsumi, T., Chighizola, C. B., Forastiero, R., de Groot, P., Lakos, G., Lambert, M., Meroni, P., Ortel, T. L., Petri, M., Rahman, A., Roubey, R., Sciascia, S., Snyder, M., Tebo, A. E., Tincani, A., & Willis, R.
- Affiliations
- Hokkaido University (JP)
- University of Milan (IT)
- Favaloro University (AR)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR)
- Duke University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University College London (GB)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- King's College London (GB)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Autoimmunity Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 917-930
- ISSN
- 1568-9972 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992325618
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 134
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Autoimmunity Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Louise Gergel Fellowship
- NIH (AR43727)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
- Keywords
- antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid antibodies, laboratory diagnosis, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, autoantibodies, classification criteria, thrombosis, pregnancy morbidity, diagnostic trends
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Autoantibodies, Congresses as Topic, Humans, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid, Advisory Committees, beta 2-Glycoprotein I
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
