Cited by 116Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchVasculitis and related conditionsBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms

Clinical accuracy for diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: evaluation of 23 possible combinations of antiphospholipid antibody specificities

Open access
SCIASCIA, S., MURRU, V., SANNA, G., ROCCATELLO, D., KHAMASHTA, M.A., BERTOLACCINI, M.L.·2012·Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the clinical accuracy of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) specificities both individually and/or in combination, in a wide cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients in an attempt to identify a panel of tests that may provide the best accuracy for diagnosing antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).Patients and methods This study included 230 patients (218 women, mean age 42.7 ± 11.9 years, mean disease duration 12.2 ± 8.7 years), all fulfilling the 1982 criteria for SLE. All patients were tested for lupus anticoagulant (LA), anti-cardiolipin (aCL), anti-β(2) glycoprotein I (anti-β2GPI), solid phase anti-prothrombin (aPT), anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT), and anti-phosphatidylethanolamine (aPE) antibodies. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated. The diagnostic accuracy for each combination of tests was assessed by ROC and their area under the curve analysis as well as by the Youden's index (YI).Results Testing for six aPL derived 23 possible combinations of results. Among them, LA + anti-β(2)GPI + aPS/PT had the best diagnostic accuracy for APS as a whole and individually for both thrombosis and pregnancy loss (AUC 0.712, OR 3.73 [95% CI 1.82-5.38], P = 0.0001, YI = 0.32 and AUC 0.709, OR 3.75 [95% CI 2.13-6.62], P = 0.0001, YI = 0.37 and AUC 0.677, OR 4.82 [95% CI 2.17-10.72], P = 0.0007, YI = 0.38, respectively) and the best specificity when compared with all the other obtainable combination of tests. Triple positivity for LA + anti-β(2)GPI + aPS/PT was more strongly associated with clinical events (thrombosis and/or PL) when compared with double or single positivity (OR 23.2 [95% CI 2.57-46.2] vs. OR 7.3 [95% CI 2.21-25.97], OR 5.7 [95% CI 2.12-17.01] or OR 3.11 [95% CI 1.56-7.8] for single positivity for LA, aPS/PT and anti-β(2)GPI, respectively).Conclusions Combining LA, anti-β(2)GPI and aPS/PT improves the diagnostic power and helps in stratifying the risk for each patient, according to their aPL profile.

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/jth.12014

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Sciascia et al. evaluated 23 possible combinations of aPL profiles in SLE patients and found that combining LA, anti-β2-glycoprotein I and aPS-PT had the best diagnostic accuracy for both thrombosis and pregnancy loss.

    “Sciascia et al. [34] evaluated 23 possible combinations of aPL profiles in SLE patients, and found that combining LA, anti-β2-glycoprotein I and aPS-PT had the best diagnostic accuracy for both thrombosis and pregnancy loss.”

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: 1

  1. Amengual O, Atsumi T, Khamashta MA, Koike T, Hughes GR. Specificity of ELISA for antibody to beta 2-glycoprotein I in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35: 1239-43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SCIASCIA, S., MURRU, V., SANNA, G., ROCCATELLO, D., KHAMASHTA, M. A., & BERTOLACCINI, M. L.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
BERTOLACCINI, M.L.
Venue
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
2512-2518
ISSN
1538-7836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1574152642
Cited by
116
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 11
FWCI
7.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-prothrombin antibodies, diagnostic accuracy, thrombosis, miscarriage
MeSH terms
Adult, Antibody Specificity, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, 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