English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  Gold standard lupus anticoagulant ( LA ) assays and reference plasmas do not exist and detection is based on inference in a medley of coagulation assays, creating potential for interpretive discrepancies when applying different algorithms.    Objectives  To investigate discrepancies from applying different algorithms to a common data set.    Methods  Diagnostic data on 311 non‐anticoagulated patients  LA ‐positive by dilute Russell's viper venom time ( dRVVT ) and/or dilute activated partial thromboplastin time ( dAPTT ) assays were employed to compare algorithms. Routine testing applied interpretive criteria from guidelines endorsing classification as  LA ‐positive despite negative mixing tests, after exclusion of other clotting abnormalities. Integrated testing without mixing tests, and the classical algorithm where negative mixing tests preclude confirm tests, were then retrospectively applied to those data.    Results  Initial testing showed 92/311 (29.6%) were  LA ‐positive by  dRVVT  only, 156/311 (50.1%) by  dAPTT  only, and 63/311 (20.3%) by both assays. All  dAPTT ‐positive plasmas remained positive with integrated testing but eight  dRVVT ‐positives became negative. Other data suggested they were false‐negatives. The classical algorithm altered 52/155 (33.5%)  dRVVT  and 111/219 (50.7%)  dAPTT  interpretations to  LA ‐negative because of normal mixing tests, most of which were apparently weak  LA  in undiluted plasma.    Conclusions  The classical algorithm improves diagnostic specificity and confidence but risks missing some genuine  LA  due to false‐negative mixing tests. Integrated testing can be diagnostically accurate and logistically efficient but oversimplifies complex cases. Performing mix and confirm in response to an elevated screen with their interpretation based on clinical data, coagulation screens and the  LA ‐assay design offers a potentially valuable option.

Application of different lupus anticoagulant diagnostic algorithms to the same assay data leads to interpretive discrepancies in some samples