Cited by 98Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Antiphospholipid antibody testing and standardization

Open access
Devreese, K. M. J.·2014·International Journal of Laboratory Hematology

Abstract

The laboratory criteria that define patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) include lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2 glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI). All assays show methodological shortcomings and the combination of the three tests, each with different sensitivity and specificity, and hence, differences in clinical utility make the laboratory diagnosis of APS challenging. Consensus guidelines and proposals for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) testing have been published in the last 20 years and have led to a substantial improvement. Despite efforts so far, standardization is not reached yet, but progress has been made. On-going efforts to reduce the interlaboratory/interassay variations remain important; even an absolute standardization cannot be feasibly achieved. Taking into account the methodological shortcomings of the means we have available, more detailed guidelines may help in adequate performance of aPL testing. This review will focus on the efforts and achievements in standardization and on the weaknesses and strengths of the current available laboratory methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijlh.12234

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Reber G, Meijer P. In ECAT veritas? Lupus 2012;21:722-4.
  2. Tincani A, Filippini M, Scarsi M, Galli M, Meroni PL. European attempts for the stan- dardisation of the antiphospholipid anti- bodies. Lupus 2009;18:913-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Devreese, K. M. J.
Affiliations
Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
Devreese, K. M. J.
Venue
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-18
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
352-363
ISSN
  • 1751-5521 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-553X
OpenAlex
W2148616488
Cited by
98
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Laboratory Hematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (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
antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, assay standardization, inter-laboratory variability, diagnostic criteria
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid

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