Responses

Download PDFPDF
Assessment of the 2006 revised antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Comments on the Reassessment of the 2006 revised antiphospholipid syndriome classification criteria

    Dear Editor, The recent retrospective study by Kaul et al(1) on the assessment of the 2006 revised classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (2) sets the ground for at least three issues. a) The inclusion of “non-criteria aPL features” in the revised APS criteria is indeed a step forward, but it appears that it requires revaluation, particularly with regards to the addition of thrombocytopenia as a dist...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.