Herrera-Rueda GA

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 95-96
PDF size: 49.28 Kb.

Text Extraction

No abstract.

REFERENCES

1. Harvey SC. The history of hemostasis. Ann Med Hist 1929;1:127-154.

2. Al-Koussa H, AlZaim I, El-Sabban ME. Pathophysiology of coagulation and emerging roles for extracellularvesicles in coagulation cascades and disorders. J Clin Med 2022;11:4932. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164932.

3. Favaloro EJ, McDonald D, Lippi G. Laboratory investigation of thrombophilia: the good, the bad, and theugly. Semin Thromb Hemost 2009;35:695-710. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1242723.

4. Marlar RA, Rollins-Raval MA. Sources and solutions for spurious test results in coagulation. Int J Lab Hematol2019;41:S162-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12989.

5. Baker RI, O'Donnell JS. How I treat bleeding disorder of unknown cause. Blood 2021;138:1795-1804.https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2020010038.

6. Khan MT, Taj AS. Genotype-phenotype heterogeneity in haemophilia. In: Pankaj A, ed. Hemophilia. Rijeka:IntechOpen; 2019. p. Ch. 2. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81429.

7. Favaloro EJ, Lippi G. Post-analytical issues in hemostasis and thrombosis testing. Methods Mol Biol2017;1646:545-559. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7196-1_40.

8. Favaloro EJ, Lippi G, Adcock DM. Preanalytical and postanalytical variables: the leading causes of diagnosticerror in hemostasis? Semin Thromb Hemost 2008;34:612-634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1104540.

9. McCraw A, Hillarp A, Echenagucia M. Considerations in the laboratory assessment of haemostasis. Haemophilia2010;16:S74-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02302.x.

10. Rashidi HH, Bowers KA, Reyes Gil M. Machine learning in the coagulation and hemostasis arena: anoverview and evaluation of methods, review of literature, and future directions. J Thromb Haemost 2022:S1538-7836(1522)18293-18290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtha.2022.12.019