Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 603

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence‐Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue

Schwartz, Joseph, Winters, Jeffrey L., Padmanabhan, Anand, Balogun, Rasheed A., Delaney, Meghan, Linenberger, Michael L., Szczepiorkowski, Zbigniew M., Williams, Mark E., Wu, Yanyun, Shaz, Beth H.·2013·Journal of Clinical Apheresis

Abstract

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) JCA Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizating indications for therapeutic apheresis. Beginning with the 2007 ASFA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence‐based approach in the grading and categorization of indications. This Sixth Edition of the ASFA Special Issue has further improved the process of using evidence‐based medicine in the recommendations by consistently applying the category and GRADE system definitions, but eliminating the “level of evidence” criteria (from the University HealthCare Consortium) utilized in prior editions given redundancy between GRADE and University HealthCare Consortium systems. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was utilized in the Fourth and Fifth Editions, has been largely maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. This article consists of 78 fact sheets (increased from 2010) for therapeutic indications in ASFA categories I through IV, with many diseases categorized having multiple clinical presentations/situations which are individually graded and categorized. J. Clin. Apheresis 28:145–284, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jca.21276

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 603

Metadata

Authors
Schwartz, J., Winters, J. L., Padmanabhan, A., Balogun, R. A., Delaney, M., Linenberger, M. L., Szczepiorkowski, Z. M., Williams, M. E., Wu, Y., & Shaz, B. H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Apheresis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
145-284
ISSN
  • 0733-2459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1101
OpenAlex
W2902092029
Cited by
603
References
24
FWCI
96.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.