Cited by 740Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchVasculitis and related conditionsBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Guidelines on the investigation and management of antiphospholipid syndrome

Open access
Keeling, David, Mackie, Ian, Moore, Gary W., Greer, Ian A., Greaves, Michael, British Committee for Standards in Haematology·2012·British Journal of Haematology

Abstract

The British Journal of Haematology publishes original research papers in clinical, laboratory and experimental haematology. The Journal also features annotations, reviews, short reports, images in haematology and Letters to the Editor.

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/j.1365-2141.2012.09037.x

Cites

176 of 176 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?

  • Guidelines recommend that mixing tests are interpreted with either MTC or ICA.

    “Guidelines recommend mixing tests are interpreted with either a mixing test specific cut‐off (MTC) or the index of circulating anticoagulant (ICA).”

    From Lupus anticoagulant mixing tests for multiple reagents are more sensitive if interpreted with a mixing test‐specific cut‐off than index of circulating anticoagulant (2018) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Lupus anticoagulant testing section says mixing tests may be used to detect an inhibitor, and the Recommendation section describes interpreting an abnormal screening result from a mixture. Neither passage recommends interpreting mixing tests with an MTC or ICA; the paper’s discussion of cut-offs concerns LA tests generally, not those two methods specifically. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Integrated testing is sufficient to detect LA without performing the mixing test in samples with no other causes of clotting time prolongation and LA confirmatory test results within reference intervals.

    “For samples from patients with no other causes of clotting time prolongation and LA assay confirmatory test results within reference intervals, the increasingly popular paradigm of integrated testing is sufficient to detect the presence of LA without performing the mixing test at all.6, 7, 8, 9, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34”

    From Lupus anticoagulant mixing tests for multiple reagents are more sensitive if interpreted with a mixing test‐specific cut‐off than index of circulating anticoagulant (2018) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Lupus anticoagulant testing section says that, when no other cause of prolonged clotting time is present, samples may be considered LA-positive based on positive screening and confirmatory tests on undiluted plasma, despite a negative mixing test. It does not specify that the confirmatory test result must fall within its reference interval, and it recommends confirmation with a fresh sample whenever possible. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Various interpretation indices, including %Correct, SCR, and NSCR, are suggested to determine the presence of LA in phospholipid-dependent assays.

    “Various interpretation indices, including percentage of correction (%Correct), screen-to-confirm ratio (SCR), and normalized SCR (NSCR), are suggested to determine the presence of LA in these phospholipid-dependent assays [[11], [12], [13]].”

    From Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience (2024) · cites this paper as [12]

    The ‘Lupus anticoagulant testing’ section recommends percentage correction or a normalized screen-to-confirm ratio for interpreting LA tests. It does not recommend an unnormalized screen-to-confirm ratio (SCR) as a separate index; it specifies that screen and confirm results should first be expressed as ratios against a normal plasma pool. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CLSI and BSH guidelines employ a "parametric" approach assuming a Gaussian distribution of LA results, using a reference range of ±2 standard deviations from the mean value.

    “CLSI and BSH guidelines [15,36], on the other hand, employ a “parametric” approach assuming a Gaussian distribution of LA results, using a reference range of ±2 standard deviations from the mean value”

    From Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Lupus anticoagulant testing section says laboratories have historically used mean + 2 SD as an LA-positive cutoff for normally distributed data, and that most UK laboratories use the corresponding 97.5th centile. It does not prescribe a ±2 SD reference range or say that LA results must be Gaussian; it also notes a contrasting 99th-centile recommendation. This source does not establish what the separately cited CLSI guideline uses. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Clotting times of screening, mixing, and confirmatory procedures are prone to inter- and intra-assay variability; therefore, it is recommended to normalize these clotting times by generating a ratio between test clotting time and NPP clotting time.

    “Clotting times of screening, mixing, and confirmatory procedures are prone to inter- (between same-principle tests offered by different manufacturers) and intra-assay (between batches of the same reagent) variability [25]; for this reason, it is recommended to normalize a screening, mixing, and confirmatory clotting time, generating a ratio between test clotting time and NPP clotting time [9,36,48”

    From Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Horowitz, G.L., Altaie, S., Boyd, J.C., Ceriotti, F., Garg, U., Horn, P., Pesce, A., Sine, H.E. & Zakowski, J. (2008) Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Lab- oratory: Approved Guideline -Third Edition. CLSI document C28-A3c. Clinical and Labora- tory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, USA.
  2. Hughes, G.R. & Khamashta, M.A. (2003) Seroneg- ative antiphospholipid syndrome. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 62, 1127.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keeling, D., Mackie, I., Moore, G. W., Greer, I. A., Greaves, M., & British Committee for Standards in Haematology
Affiliations
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Keeling, David
Venue
British Journal of Haematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-08
Volume
157
Issue
1
Pages
47-58
ISSN
  • 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2141
OpenAlex
W2160597832
Cited by
740
References
176
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 14
FWCI
30.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Haematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Keywords
antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid antibodies, thrombosis, pregnancy complications, clinical management, diagnostic workup
MeSH terms
Humans, 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