Laboratory Testing for Lupus Anticoagulants: Preexamination Variables, Mixing Studies, and Diagnostic Criteria
Abstract
The latest international guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants (LA) date back to 1995 and are in need of revision. Various patterns of practice and interpretation by clinical laboratories have altered the intent or usage of the criteria and recommendations made at that time. Moreover, various topics in the preexamination phase of LA testing (such as the role of the clinician in test ordering, the impact of direct thrombin inhibitors or oral anticoagulant therapy, and patient biologic variation) need to be considered in future guidelines. In like fashion, examination issues relating to mixing studies will need critical review. Mixing studies have been applied to a variety of low-phospholipid LA screening assays, and no uniformity or standardization exists as to how these test results should be interpreted or if in fact they are suitable for identifying weak lupus anticoagulants.
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?
In theory, coagulation factors contained in PNP will correct the prolongation of the screening test if affected by a deficiency of one or more factors; if an inhibitor is present, the clotting time will remain prolonged.
“In theory, the coagulation factors contained in PNP will correct the prolongation of the screening test, restoring a clotting time that falls in the range of normality, if affected by a deficiency of one (or more) factors; if an inhibitor is present, the clotting time will remain prolonged [46,47].”
From Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lupus Anticoagulant Testing: Performance and Practices by North American Clinical Laboratories
Dembitzer, F. R., Ledford Kraemer, M. R., Meijer, P., & Peerschke, E. I. B. (2010) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1309/ajcp4spplg5xvixf · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationClinical significance of the mixing test in laboratory diagnoses of lupus anticoagulant
Hong, S. K., Hwang, S. M., Kim, J.-E., & Kim, H. K. (2012) · Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis · doi:10.1097/mbc.0b013e328358e899 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass
Molinari, A. C., Martini, T., Banov, L., Ierardi, A., Leotta, M., Strangio, A., & Santoro, R. C. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12206654 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Viewpoint: Lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation in antiphospholipid syndrome
Efthymiou, M., Bertolaccini, M. L., & Cohen, H. (2024) · Rheumatology · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kead623 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ledford-Kraemer, M.
- Corresponding author
- Ledford-Kraemer, Marlies
- Venue
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 380-388
- ISSN
- 0094-6176 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-9064
- OpenAlex
- W2030101380
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis
- Keywords
- lupus anticoagulant, laboratory diagnosis, mixing studies, diagnostic criteria, direct thrombin inhibitors, oral anticoagulation, test ordering
- MeSH terms
- Anticoagulants, Diagnosis, Differential, Hematologic Tests, Humans, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Guidelines as Topic
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