Interpretation of clot‐based lupus anticoagulant assays—Normalizing clotting time against different denominators
Abstract
Objectives The endpoint for all lupus anticoagulant (LA) assays is a clotting time in seconds. This study aimed to clarify the use of normalizing clotting time to ratio and how the use of different denominators is relevant. Methods Whether normalization could reduce reagent variability and possess better diagnostic performances was assessed; denominators included reference interval (RI) mean, local-obtained pooled plasma clotting time, standard plasma clotting time, and control plasma clotting time (CNPPct). Moreover, whether day-to-day variation in CNPPct would impact its application was studied. Results If not normalized, significant difference existed among different reagent batches; if normalized (against any denominators), no statistically significant difference existed anymore. The validation of in-house RIs achieved a 100% success rate. Normalization against different denominators had different RIs, but the same diagnostic efficacies (when a prolonged LA1 is used to suggest further LA-related testings, normalized LA1 demonstrated a better sensitivity: 1.0 vs. 0.95). Normalization against a "daily" CNPPct (obtained alongside test plasmas day to day) demonstrated low inter-day variations (LA1: ~1%, LA2: ~1%), and it could employ the RI for normalization against a "fixed" CNPPct (obtained alongside normal plasmas when the RI was established). Conclusions Normalizing clotting time reduces reagent-batch variability and promotes the adoption of common RIs, and therefore redu…
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?
The NSCR is recommended by the existing guidelines as a parameter for interpreting phospholipid-dependent assays because it can reduce both interlaboratory and interreagent variations.
“The NSCR is recommended by the existing guidelines as a parameter for interpreting phospholipid-dependent assays [[11], [12], [13],20] because it can reduce both interlaboratory and interreagent variations [25].”
From Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
Galli, M., Luciani, D., Bertolini, G., & Barbui, T. (2003) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2002-02-0441 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
Devreese, K. M. J., de Groot, P. G., de Laat, B., Erkan, D., Favaloro, E. J., Mackie, I., Martinuzzo, M., Ortel, T. L., Pengo, V., Rand, J. H., et al. (2020) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/jth.15047 · Cited by 439 · see citing works
Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants
Moore, G. (2014) · Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1364185 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Tripodi, A., Cohen, H., & Devreese, K. M. J. (2020) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/jth.14846 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Gebhart, J., Posch, F., Koder, S., Perkmann, T., Quehenberger, P., Zoghlami, C., Ay, C., & Pabinger, I. (2015) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2014-11-611129 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Current Controversies in Lupus Anticoagulant Detection
Moore, G. (2016) · Antibodies · doi:10.3390/antib5040022 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Kumano, O., & Moore, G. W. (2018) · Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1002/rth2.12069 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analytical dilemmas in lupus anticoagulant detection
Moore, G. W. (2023) · Exploration of Immunology · doi:10.37349/ei.2023.00104 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience
Apipongrat, D., Lamool, R., Arnutti, P., Ruangpratheep, C., & Chantkran, W. (2024) · Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102333 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ling, L., Liu, C., Huang, X., Liao, J., Jia, J., & Zhou, J.
- Affiliations
- Department of Laboratory Medicine West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Jing
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-03-16
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 777-784
- ISSN
- 1751-5521 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-553X
- OpenAlex
- W4220672137
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Laboratory Hematology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81371878, 81902126)
- Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program (2020YFS0254)
- 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, reference values, day-to-day variability, diagnostic sensitivity, anticoagulant screening
- MeSH terms
- Blood Coagulation, Blood Coagulation Tests, Humans, Partial Thromboplastin Time, Plasma, Reference Values, 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