Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2005
The discriminant power of bleeding history for the diagnosis of type 1 von Willebrand disease: an international, multicenter study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodeghiero F, Castaman G, Tosetto A, Batlle J, Baudo F, Cappelletti A, Casana P, De Bosch N, Eikenboom J C J, Federici A B, Lethagen S, Linari S, Srivastava A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was the validation of the criteria defining a significant mucocutaneous-bleeding history in type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: To avoid selection bias, 42 obligatory carriers (OC) of type 1 VWD were identified from a panel of 42 families with type 1 VWD enrolled by 10 expert centers. OC were identified by the presence of an offspring and another first degree relative with type 1 VWD (affected subjects, AFF). A standardized questionnaire was administered to evaluate hemorrhagic symptoms at the time of first examination, using a bleeding score ranging from 0 (no symptom) to 3 (hospitalization, replacement therapy, blood transfusion). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values for the diagnosis of type 1 VWD were calculated from the data collected in OC and in 215 controls.
RESULTS: Having at least three hemorrhagic symptoms or a bleeding score of 3 in males and 5 in females was very specific (98.6%) for the bleeding history of type 1 VWD, although less sensitive (69.1%). None of the misclassified OC had life-threatening bleeding episodes after diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the use of a standardized questionnaire and bleeding score may be useful for the identification of subjects requiring laboratory evaluation for VWD.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: To avoid selection bias, 42 obligatory carriers (OC) of type 1 VWD were identified from a panel of 42 families with type 1 VWD enrolled by 10 expert centers. OC were identified by the presence of an offspring and another first degree relative with type 1 VWD (affected subjects, AFF). A standardized questionnaire was administered to evaluate hemorrhagic symptoms at the time of first examination, using a bleeding score ranging from 0 (no symptom) to 3 (hospitalization, replacement therapy, blood transfusion). Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values for the diagnosis of type 1 VWD were calculated from the data collected in OC and in 215 controls.
RESULTS: Having at least three hemorrhagic symptoms or a bleeding score of 3 in males and 5 in females was very specific (98.6%) for the bleeding history of type 1 VWD, although less sensitive (69.1%). None of the misclassified OC had life-threatening bleeding episodes after diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the use of a standardized questionnaire and bleeding score may be useful for the identification of subjects requiring laboratory evaluation for VWD.