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

Comparison of six dilute Russell viper venom time lupus anticoagulant screen/confirm assay kits

Fritsma, George, McGlasson, David·2013·Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The normalized dilute Russell viper venom time (DRVVT) ratio provides a robust assay methodology for lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated six normalized DRVVT LA screen and confirm systems for inter-method consistency. Reagents were purchased from Diagnostica Stago, Inc. (Parsippany, NJ); Precision BioLogic Inc. (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada); Siemens Healthcare Inc. (Deerfield, IL); TCoag (Parsippany, NJ); Instrumentation Laboratories (Bedford, MA); and Sekisui Diagnostics (Pfungstadt, Germany). METHODS: For all assays, we employed the STA-R Evolution automated coagulometer, adhering to manufacturers' instructions. LA-positive and LA-negative plasma controls were purchased from Diagnostica Stago and pooled normal plasma (PNP) was purchased from Precision BioLogic. We computed the mean of the reference interval (MRI) and action limits for all kits using LA-negative aliquots from locally sourced normal subjects (n = 42). We then assayed locally sourced LA-positive plasmas (n = 43) and using analysis of variance compared uncorrected screen/confirm ratios and screen/confirm ratios that were normalized using MRI and mean PNP results. RESULTS: The grand mean action limit, MRI + 3 SD, derived from the local normal plasmas, was 1.2, confirming the manufacturers' recommended limits; however, limits must be locally computed. The all-sample p value was less than 0.001, indicating heterogeneity among ratios. When Sekisui ratios were excluded, the p value was 0.14, thus indicating that this method introduced the major difference among methods. Mean screen/confirm ratios computed from LA-positive specimens were 1.91 to 2.04 for reagent systems other than Sekisui, which instead yielded a mean ratio of 1.198, indicating that this method was relatively insensitive to LA. A negative bias was recorded by two lots from the Sekisui system for LA-positive specimens. Screen/confirm ratios from combined LA-positive and LA-negative samples generated a combined range of 1.59 to 1.67 for all reagents except Sekisui, which instead yielded 1.09. The within-run percent coefficient of variation (CV%) was less than 5.0% using all samples. Between-run CV% using Diagnostica Stago LA-positive and LA-negative controls was less than 5.5%. CONCLUSIONS: DRVVT screen/confirm ratios discriminate between LA-positive and LA-negative samples and generally provide acceptable reproducibility. Ratio results may vary among reagent-instrument combinations. In this study, normalization added little to the clinical result interpretation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0033-1334865

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 33

Authors
Fritsma, G., & McGlasson, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center (US)
Corresponding author
McGlasson, David
Venue
Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
Published
2013-03-06
Volume
39
Issue
03
Pages
315-319
ISSN
  • 0094-6176 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-9064
OpenAlex
W1988898544
Cited by
33
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Air Force Surgeon General
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
lupus anticoagulant, dilute Russell viper venom time, assay kit comparison, reference values, action limits, assay sensitivity, coefficient of variation, anticoagulant screening, negative bias
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Humans, Partial Thromboplastin Time, Prothrombin Time, Reference Values, Specimen Handling, Viper Venoms, 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