Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 793

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 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 Seventh Special Issue

Schwartz, Joseph, Padmanabhan, Anand, Aqui, Nicole, Balogun, Rasheed A., Connelly‐Smith, Laura, Delaney, Meghan, Dunbar, Nancy M., Witt, Volker, Wu, Yanyun, Shaz, Beth H.·2016·Journal of Clinical Apheresis

Abstract

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence‐based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence‐based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149–162, 2016. © 2016 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.21470

Cites

22 of 22 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

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 793

Metadata

Authors
Schwartz, J., Padmanabhan, A., Aqui, N., Balogun, R. A., Connelly‐Smith, L., Delaney, M., Dunbar, N. M., Witt, V., Wu, Y., & Shaz, B. H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Apheresis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
149-338
ISSN
  • 0733-2459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1101
OpenAlex
W2902614592
Cited by
793
References
22
FWCI
86.34
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice–Evidence‐Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Seventh Special Issue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jca.21470
The paper
Schwartz, J., Padmanabhan, A., Aqui, N., Balogun, R. A., Connelly‐Smith, L., Delaney, M., Dunbar, N. M., Witt, V., Wu, Y., & Shaz, B. H. (2016). Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice–Evidence‐Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Seventh Special Issue. Journal of Clinical Apheresis. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21470

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.