Cited by 46Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsVasculitis and related conditions

The dilution effect of equal volume mixing studies compromises confirmation of inhibition by lupus anticoagulants even when mixture specific reference ranges are applied

Moore, Gary W., Savidge, Geoffrey F.·2006·Thrombosis Research

Abstract

Introduction One of the recommended criteria for the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants (LA) is demonstration of inhibitory activity. This is confirmed by performing mixing tests with normal plasma, usually in a 1:1 ratio, and demonstrating persistence of an abnormal clotting time in the screening test with significant confirmatory test reduction. However, the mixing with normal plasma can dilute the antibodies to undetectable levels and generate apparent negative results. No guidelines or consensus exist in how to interpret mixing study results.Patients and methods The present study assessed the 1:1 mixing study results from 600 patients with a thrombotic history positive for LA demonstrated in neat plasma by individual assays, or combinations, of dilute Russell's viper venom time, dilute activated partial thromboplastin time, activated seven lupus anticoagulant assay and Taipan snake venom time, plus confirmatory tests. Mixing tests were assessed initially using locally derived neat plasma reference ranges and subsequently with mixture specific ranges.Results The mixture specific ranges had lower upper limits. Of the total LA positive results, 32.5% were positive in the mixing studies when neat plasma reference ranges were applied, and a further 11.2% demonstrated LA activity when using the mixture specific ranges. The remaining 56.3% had been diluted such that they did not elevate the screening test above the upper limit of normal or generated minimal prolongation with an insignificant difference between the screen and confirmatory test result sufficient to confirm LA activity.Conclusions The significant impact of the dilution effect in 1:1 mixing studies emphasises the limitations of mixing studies as a vehicle for confirmation of inhibition by LA antibodies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.thromres.2005.09.010

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, G. W., & Savidge, G. F.
Affiliations
St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Moore, Gary W.
Venue
Thrombosis Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
118
Issue
4
Pages
523-528
ISSN
0049-3848 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026452950
Cited by
46
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Thrombosis Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
Keywords
lupus anticoagulant, mixing studies, dilution effect, antibody inhibition, confirmatory testing, dilute Russell's viper venom time, thrombosis, anticoagulant screening
MeSH terms
Blood Coagulation Tests, Humans, Partial Thromboplastin Time, Prothrombin Time, Reference Values, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor

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