Cited by 27Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Lupus anticoagulant detection: out of control?

Moore, G. W., Brown, K. L., Bromidge, E. S., Drew, A. J., Ledford‐Kraemer, M. R.·2013·International Journal of Laboratory Hematology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Expert guidelines indicate that normalised ratios are preferred to clotting times for lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays to mitigate analytical variation. We investigated the effects of deriving normalised ratios from the reference interval (RI) mean or different normal pooled plasmas (NPP). METHODS: Screen, confirm and mixing tests for dilute Russell's viper venom time and APTT were converted to normalised ratios and interpreted for LA. RESULTS: Of 1000 clinical samples, 824 generated identical interpretations using RI mean or NPP-derived ratios and 57 identified LAs in one or both assays via either denominator. Separate RIs were applied for normalised ratios derived from the NPP or RI mean. Applying percentage correction index (PCI) to screen and confirm assays irrespective of screen elevation increased agreement to 92.5%. Two frozen and one lyophilised NPP were then used to derive ratios for 204 samples and 130 generated identical interpretations with all NPPs, 14 had overall interpretation parity and 19 overall agreement via PCI, giving 79.9% overall agreement. The results derived from each NPP were interpreted against RIs derived from RI means to reflect differences resulting from NPPs with clotting times dissimilar to RI means. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities were largely a function of closeness of NPP clotting times to test RI means and not owing to clotting factor level differences and likely related to manufacturing variables. Diagnostic benefit of normalised ratios can be maximised by matching NPP values to RI means. If RI mean is employed, and it likely requires re-establishing with new reagent batches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijlh.12006

Cites

28 of 28 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., Brown, K. L., Bromidge, E. S., Drew, A. J., & Ledford‐Kraemer, M. R.
Affiliations
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • CLOT‐ED Inc. Islamorada FL USA
Corresponding author
Moore, G. W.
Venue
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-17
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
128-136
ISSN
  • 1751-5521 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-553X
OpenAlex
W2092107786
Cited by
27
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Laboratory Hematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, dilute Russell's viper venom time, activated partial thromboplastin time, assay agreement
MeSH terms
Blood Coagulation Tests, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Antiphospholipid Syndrome

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