The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 19 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study.
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To assess risk factors for a first thrombotic event in confirmed antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody carriers and to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic treatments.Methods Inclusion criteria were age 18-65 years, no history of thrombosis and two consecutive positive aPL results. Demographic, laboratory and clinical parameters were collected at enrolment, once a year during the follow-up and at the time of the thrombotic event, whenever that occurred.Results 258 subjects were prospectively observed between October 2004 and October 2008. The mean ± SD follow-up was 35.0 ± 11.9 months (range 1-48). A first thrombotic event (9 venous, 4 arterial and 1 transient ischaemic attack) occurred in 14 subjects (5.4%, annual incidence rate 1.86%). Hypertension and lupus anticoagulant (LA) were significantly predictive of thrombosis (both at p<0.05) and thromboprophylaxis was significantly protective during high-risk periods (p<0.05) according to univariate analysis. Hypertension and LA were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis as independent risk factors for thrombosis (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.1, p<0.05, and HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14, p<0.05, respectively).Conclusions Hypertension and LA are independent risk factors for thrombosis in aPL carriers. Thromboprophylaxis in these subjects should probably be limited to high-risk situations.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In 258 confirmed antiphospholipid antibody carriers without prior thrombosis, hypertension and lupus anticoagulant were independent risk factors for a first thrombotic event. Thromboprophylaxis appeared protective only when given during high-risk periods.
Key findings
- A first thrombotic event occurred in 14/258 subjects (5.4%; annual incidence rate 1.86 per 100 patients per year): 9 venous thromboses, 4 arterial thromboses, and 1 transient ischaemic attack.
- Multivariate Cox analysis identified hypertension (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.1, p<0.05) and lupus anticoagulant (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14, p<0.05) as independent risk factors for thrombosis.
- Univariate analysis found hypertension and lupus anticoagulant significantly associated with thrombosis (both p<0.05); Kaplan-Meier analysis showed higher cumulative incidence with hypertension (p<0.01) and lupus anticoagulant (p<0.05).
- Thromboprophylaxis during high-risk periods was significantly protective (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.9, p<0.05), whereas continuous prophylaxis was not associated with reduced thromboembolic events.
Methods
- Prospective multicentre follow-up study of 258 Caucasian confirmed aPL carriers (223 women, 35 men; mean±SD age 40.9±11.1 years) aged 18–65 with no history of thrombosis and at least two consecutive positive aPL results no less than 12 weeks apart, recruited from 11 Italian rheumatology centres between 15 October 2004 and 15 October 2008.
- Mean±SD follow-up was 35.0±11.9 months; clinical and laboratory parameters were collected at enrolment, once a year, and at any thrombotic event; aPL testing included lupus anticoagulant, IgG/IgM anticardiolipin, and IgG/IgM anti-β2-glycoprotein I.
- Analyses included univariate tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank tests, McNemar test, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling adjusted for age, sex, aPL antibodies, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, pregnancy/puerperium, smoking, hypercholesterolaemia, body mass index, pill/hormone replacement therapy, and diabetes mellitus.
Limitations
- The paper states that there was no central laboratory for aPL testing and that the follow-up period was short.
- Evident from the text: only 14 thrombotic events occurred, limiting statistical power and precision.
- Evident from the text: prophylaxis was not randomized, long-term low-dose aspirin was initiated arbitrarily for specified reasons, and drug compliance was monitored by self-report, so confounding by indication is possible.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
10 Own result · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Own interpretation · 2 Own method · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Retrospective, [1][2][3][4] case-control [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and cross-sectional 13,14 studies with different designs, patient selection criteria, aPL profiles and risk factors have produced contradictory results.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Silver, 1994, Clinical consequences of antiphospholipid antibodies: an historic cohort study., Obstet Gynecol
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] Shah, 1998, Outcome of patients with anticardiolipin antibodies: a 10 year follow-up of 52 patients., Lupus source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Erkan, 2001, High thrombosis rate after fetal loss in antiphospholipid syndrome: effective prophylaxis with aspirin., Arthritis Rheum source
- Disputedcites [4] Janardhan, 2004, Anticardiolipin antibodies and risk of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack: the Framingham cohort and offspring study., Stroke sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited paper is not a retrospective, case-control, or cross-sectional study of the kind listed in the citing sentence. Its Subjects and Definition of Clinical Outcome section says participants were followed for 11 years to identify incident stroke or TIA, and its Discussion explicitly calls the design a prospective population-based cohort study. The paper does acknowledge conflicting earlier findings, but its classification in this list is contrary to our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] de Groot, 2005, Lupus anticoagulants and the risk of a first episode of deep venous thrombosis., J Thromb Haemost source
- Supportedcites [6] Saidi, 2009, Lupus anticoagulants and anti-phospholipid antibodies as risk factors for a first episode of ischemic stroke., J Thromb Haemost source
The Discussion identifies this paper as a population-based case-control study. The Introduction reports conflicting results among case-control studies of aPL and ischemic stroke and discusses differences in patient characteristics and risk factors that could explain them. This supports its citation as a case-control study in the stated context. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Ginsburg, 1992, Anticardiolipin antibodies and the risk for ischemic stroke and venous thrombosis., Ann Intern Med source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Vaarala, 1995, Anti-cardiolipin antibodies and risk of myocardial infarction in a prospective cohort of middle-aged men., Circulation source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Runchey, 2002, Anticardiolipin antibodies as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism in a population-based prospective study., Br J Haematol source
- Partly supportedcites [10] Naess, 2006, A prospective study of anticardiolipin antibodies as a risk factor for venous thrombosis in a general population (the HUNT study)., J Thromb Haemost sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) reports differing findings across prior studies, and the Discussion (page unavailable) contrasts the HUNT results with other studies while identifying differences in design, participant selection and antibody assays. Our copy does not establish the sentence’s specific claim about cross-sectional studies or show that differing risk factors account for the contradictory results. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although none of the participants developed serious adverse events such as major bleeding episodes during prophylaxis, three patients discontinued long-term prophylaxis for personal reasons.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Results
plainn = 258- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thromboembolic events were significantly reduced only when antithrombotic prophylaxis was administered in high-risk situations (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.9, p<0.05).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Primary prophylaxis in high-risk situations was found to be a significant protective factor against thrombosis according to univariate analysis.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Drug compliance self-reports accurately reflect actual compliance.
- Rests on an assumption: The association between high-risk prophylaxis and reduced thrombosis is not due to confounding by indication or other unmeasured confounders.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypertension and LA were significantly associated with thrombosis (both p<0.05).”
- Also stated in: § Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis · plain
“As shown in figure 1, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis provided similar results: the cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension (p<0.01) and LA (p<0.05).”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypertension and LA were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis as independent risk factors for thrombosis (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.1, p<0.05, and HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14, p<0.05, respectively).”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 14 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The study cohort is representative of confirmed antiphospholipid antibody carriers without a history of thrombosis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Continuous prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in thromboembolic events.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Drug compliance self-reports accurately reflect actual compliance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A first thrombotic event (9 venous, 4 arterial and 1 transient ischaemic attack) occurred in 14 subjects (5.4%, annual incidence rate 1.86%).”
- Also stated in: § Clinical characteristics Prevalence · plain
“The thrombosis incidence rate was 1.86 per 100 patients per year.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Finally, the number of thrombotic events was rather low (incidence rate 1.86% per 100 patients per year) and similar to that reported in other studies [1][2][3]7,8,13,16 and by our own retrospective study.15”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Abstract
plainn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Clinical characteristics Prevalence · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypertension and LA were significantly associated with thrombosis (both p<0.05).”
- Also stated in: § Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis · plain
“As shown in figure 1, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis provided similar results: the cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension (p<0.01) and LA (p<0.05).”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Analysis of risk factors for thrombosis · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A first thrombotic event (9 venous, 4 arterial and 1 transient ischaemic attack) occurred in 14 subjects (5.4%, annual incidence rate 1.86%).”
- Also stated in: § Clinical characteristics Prevalence · plain
“Fourteen patients ( 5 . 4% of the study population; 10 women and 4 men with a mean±SD age of 39.9±11.7 years, range 23-60) had a first thrombotic event (9 venous thromboses (64.3%), 4 arterial thromboses (28.6%), 1 TIA (7.1%)) after a mean±SD follow-up of 21.4±18.3months (range 1-47.6).”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Abstract
plainn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Clinical characteristics Prevalence · plain
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In agreement with previously reported findings, 1,15 pregnancy was not associated with thrombosis in our patients.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Silver, 1994, Clinical consequences of antiphospholipid antibodies: an historic cohort study., Obstet Gynecol
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Ruffatti, 2009, Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers. A multicentre, retrospective follow-up study., Ann Rheum Dis source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 2
- It may state two separate claims as one. 3
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that there was no central laboratory for aPL testing, which certainly represents a missed opportunity, and the short follow-up period can be considered limitations of the study.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that there was no central laboratory for aPL testing, which certainly represents a missed opportunity, and the short follow-up period can be considered limitations of the study.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, the number of thrombotic events was rather low (incidence rate 1.86% per 100 patients per year) and similar to that reported in other studies [1][2][3]7,8,13,16 and by our own retrospective study.15”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1][2][3]7,8,13,16
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Ruffatti, 2009, Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers. A multicentre, retrospective follow-up study., Ann Rheum Dis source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Long-term thromboprophylaxis management and management during high-risk periods were, moreover, found to be independent protective factors against thrombosis only when considered together but, when analysed separately, none was protective against thrombosis.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Ruffatti, 2009, Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers. A multicentre, retrospective follow-up study., Ann Rheum Dis source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is probably due to the fact that most of the pregnant women being studied here were protected by LDA ± low molecular weight heparin prophylactic treatment.”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Drug compliance self-reports accurately reflect actual compliance.
“Drug compliance was monitored on the basis of self-reports by participants.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study cohort is representative of confirmed antiphospholipid antibody carriers without a history of thrombosis.
“A cohort of 258 Caucasian confirmed aPL carriers (223 women and 35 men, mean±SD age 40.9±11.1 years, range 18-65) without a history of thrombosis were prospectively evaluated between 15 October 2004 and 15 October 2008 for a mean±SD follow-up of 35.0±11.9months (range 1-48).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The association between high-risk prophylaxis and reduced thrombosis is not due to confounding by indication or other unmeasured confounders.
“Thromboembolic events were significantly reduced only when antithrombotic prophylaxis was administered in high-risk situations (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.9, p<0.05).”
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Studies of women with SLE and prior obstetric APS are scarce, but the protective effect of LDA was supported by three retrospective studies that included a minority of patients with SLE.18–20”
From EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults (2019) · cites this paper as [20]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the higher incidence of TEs recorded in this study may be related to the selection of high-risk aPL-positive population”
From Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: a multicenter prospective study (2011) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“that (1.36%) of 125 single aPL positive carriers with a mean age of 41 years (data taken by a recently published study by our group), 15”
From Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: a multicenter prospective study (2011) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Abstract
“Hypertension and LA were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis as independent risk factors for thrombosis (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.1, p<0.05, and HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14, p<0.05, respectively).”
§ Risk factors for a first thrombotic event in antiphospholipid antibody carriers: a prospective multicentre follow-up study > Statistical analyses
“Multivariate survival analysis was performed using the proportional hazards model (Cox model) to identify significant independent factors adjusted for the potential confounding risk factors able to predict a thrombotic event.”
Citations
Cites
MIYAKIS, S., LOCKSHIN, M. D., ATSUMI, T., BRANCH, D. W., BREY, R. L., CERVERA, R., DERKSEN, R. H. W. M., DE GROOT, P. G., KOIKE, T., MERONI, P. L., et al. (2006) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x · Cited by 7,203
Self-citationBrandt, J. T., Triplett, D. A., Alving, B. M., & Scharrer, I. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 1,164
Brandt, J. T., Triplett, D. A., Alving, B., & Scharrer, I. (1995) · Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1649901 · Cited by 993
Anticardiolipin Antibodies and the Risk for Ischemic Stroke and Venous Thrombosis
Ginsburg, K. S., Liang, M. H., Newcomer, L., Goldhaber, S. Z., Schur, P. H., Hennekens, C. H., & Stampfer, M. J. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-12-997 · Cited by 526
Urbanus, R. T., Siegerink, B., Roest, M., Rosendaal, F. R., de Groot, P. G., & Algra, A. (2009) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70239-x · Cited by 429
Finazzi, G., Brancaccio, V., Moia, M., Ciavarella, N., Mazzucconi, M. G., Schinco, P., Ruggeri, M., Pogliani, E. M., Gamba, G., Rossi, E., et al. (1996) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00060-5 · Cited by 427
Erkan, D. (2002) · Rheumatology · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/41.8.924 · Cited by 330
Vaarala, O., Mänttäri, M., Manninen, V., Tenkanen, L., Puurunen, M., Aho, K., & Palosuo, T. (1995) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.91.1.23 · Cited by 317
OutiVaarala, MattiMänttäri, VesaManninen, LeenaTenkanen, MarjaPuurunen, KimmoAho, & TimoPalosuo (1995) · Circulation · Cited by 305
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 218
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meschia, J. F., Bushnell, C., Boden-Albala, B., Braun, L. T., Bravata, D. M., Chaturvedi, S., Creager, M. A., Eckel, R. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Fornage, M., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000046 · Cited by 2,650
EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults
Tektonidou, M. G., Andreoli, L., Limper, M., Amoura, Z., Cervera, R., Costedoat-Chalumeau, N., Cuadrado, M. J., Dörner, T., Ferrer-Oliveras, R., Hambly, K., et al. (2019) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215213 · Cited by 1,318
Self-citationPengo, V., Ruffatti, A., Legnani, C., Testa, S., Fierro, T., Marongiu, F., De Micheli, V., Gresele, P., Tonello, M., Ghirarduzzi, A., et al. (2011) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2011-03-340232 · Cited by 468
Self-citationAntiphospholipid syndrome: advances in diagnosis, pathogenesis, and management
Knight, J. S., Branch, D. W., & Ortel, T. L. (2023) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-069717 · Cited by 299
Arnaud, L., Mathian, A., Ruffatti, A., Erkan, D., Tektonidou, M., Cervera, R., Forastiero, R., Pengo, V., Lambert, M., Martinez-Zamora, M. A., et al. (2014) · Autoimmunity Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2013.10.014 · Cited by 215
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruffatti, A., Del Ross, T., Ciprian, M., Bertero, M. T., Salvatore, S., Scarpato, S., Montecucco, C., Rossi, S., Caramaschi, P., Biasi, D., Doria, A., Rampudda, M., Monica, N., Fischetti, F., Picillo, U., Brucato, A., Salvan, E., Vittorio, P., Meroni, P., & Tincani, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Padua (IT)
- A. O. Ordine Mauriziano di Torino (IT)
- University of Pavia (IT)
- University of Verona (IT)
- University of Brescia (IT)
- University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Ruffatti, Amelia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1083-1086
- ISSN
- 0003-4967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104266044
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 9.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2011-08-01)
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
- Keywords
- antiphospholipid antibodies, thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis, hypertension, lupus anticoagulant, risk factors, venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, transient ischemic attack, thrombosis incidence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Autoantibodies, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Thrombosis, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-19, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-19 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
