Cited by 53Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Lupus Anticoagulant Testing: Performance and Practices by North American Clinical Laboratories

Dembitzer, Francine R., Ledford Kraemer, Marlies R., Meijer, Piet, Peerschke, Ellinor I.B.·2010·American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

Lupus anticoagulant (LAC) testing is important for evaluating patients with antiphospholipid syndromes and hypercoagulable states. We reviewed results of proficiency testing challenges (n = 5) distributed by the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association to examine LAC testing performed by participating laboratories. The activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) constituted major testing methods. In screening studies, LAC-sensitive APTT methods were more sensitive to weak LAC than dRVVT-based methods but less specific. In confirmatory testing, dRVVT methods performed better, but performance was LAC-dependent. The highest false-negative confirmatory test results were obtained for the platelet neutralization procedure. Noncompliance with recommendations for LAC testing by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis was high (8%-38%), with the majority of noncompliant laboratories failing to report results of mixing studies. These data provide new insights into LAC testing in North America and identify opportunities for standardization.

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 · 10.1309/ajcp4spplg5xvixf

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 53

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brandt JT, Triplett DA, Rock WA, et al. Effect of lupus anticoagulants on the activated partial thromboplastin time. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:109-114.

Authors
Dembitzer, F. R., Ledford Kraemer, M. R., Meijer, P., & Peerschke, E. I. B.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Venue
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Published
2010-11
Volume
134
Issue
5
Pages
764-773
ISSN
  • 0002-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7722
OpenAlex
W2096640682
Cited by
53
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
lupus anticoagulant, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypercoagulability, proficiency testing, activated partial thromboplastin time, dilute Russell viper venom time, mixing studies, sensitivity and specificity, laboratory compliance, test standardization
MeSH terms
Canada, Humans, Laboratories, Hospital, United States, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, 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