Cited by 72Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Lupus anticoagulant testing: improvements in performance in a UK NEQAS proficiency testing exercise after dissemination of national guidelines on laboratory methods

Open access
Jennings, Ian, Greaves, Mike, Mackie, Ian J., Kitchen, Steve, Woods, Timothy A. L., Preston, F. Eric, on behalf of the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Blood Coagul ation·2002·British Journal of Haematology

Abstract

Laboratory screening for lupus anticoagulant (LA) has been shown to be suboptimal in several studies. Guidelines have recently been published by an expert group for the British Committee for Standards in Haematology, in an attempt to standardize and improve screening procedures. The value of using screening tests conforming with these guidelines was investigated in a United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) proficiency testing exercise. The correct diagnosis was achieved by 97% of laboratories for a LA-negative sample. However, 18.3% of centres reported a false-negative result for a sample from a LA-positive subject. A significantly higher proportion of centres that used methods conforming with the published guidelines achieved the correct diagnosis for this sample (P < 0.002, chi-square test). A wide variety of screening tests were used by laboratories in this study. Within-method agreement could be improved by the use of a common normal pooled plasma to determine ratios. However, between-method agreement was not improved by this procedure. We conclude that adoption of methods compliant with national guidelines may improve the diagnosis of LA. There is a need, however, for reference and standardization materials to ensure further improvement in the accuracy of LA methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2002.03821.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Jennings, I., Greaves, M., Mackie, I. J., Kitchen, S., Woods, T. A. L., Preston, F. E., & ation, O. B. O. T. U. N. E. Q. A. S. F. B. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Jennings, Ian
  • on behalf of the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Blood Coagul ation
Venue
British Journal of Haematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-10-30
Volume
119
Issue
2
Pages
364-369
ISSN
  • 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2141
OpenAlex
W2048370365
Cited by
72
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Haematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Keywords
lupus anticoagulant, laboratory standardization, proficiency testing, false-negative results, diagnostic accuracy, antiphospholipid syndrome
MeSH terms
Anticoagulants, Hematology, Humans, Laboratories, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Quality Control, Sensitivity and Specificity, Thrombosis, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

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