Why the study?
Can integrated laboratory coagulation tests accurately assess the risk of thrombosis in patients with different pathologies?
Can integrated laboratory coagulation tests accurately assess the risk of thrombosis in patients with different pathologies?
Integrated coagulation tests show promise for assessing thrombosis risk, but lack of standardization and overlapping reference ranges currently limit their clinical utility.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current limitations preclude routine clinical use of integrated coagulation tests; leaves open need for standardized assays in prospective validation.
In the second part we present a review of the existing data about ability of integrated tests, as already introduced in clinical practice, and the new (test of thrombin generation, thromboelastography, thrombodynamics, perfusion chamber) to assess the risk of thrombosis in different pathologies. We can conclude that the existing integrated tests can be an important tool in the diagnosis of hypercoagulation. However, lack of standardization prevents their use: various tests and modifications of each test are different in sensitivity and specificity for each pathological condition. Furthermore, even in situations where the tests can reliably identify a group of patients with different degrees of thrombosis risk, their use in clinical practice is often difficult, since the differences between these groups were statistically significant, but the normal range and patients significantly overlap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Липец et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: