Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,230

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 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 Eighth Special Issue

Padmanabhan, Anand, Connelly‐Smith, Laura, Aqui, Nicole, Balogun, Rasheed A., Klingel, Reinhard, Meyer, Erin, Pham, Huy P., Schneiderman, Jennifer, Witt, Volker, Wu, Yanyun, Zantek, Nicole D., Dunbar, Nancy M., Schwartz, Guest Editor: Joseph·2019·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 (TA) 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 Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor in order to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Eighth Edition, like its predecessor, continues to apply the category and grading system definitions in fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was introduced in the Fourth Edition, has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of TA in a specific disease entity or medical condition. The Eighth Edition comprises 84 fact sheets for relevant diseases and medical conditions, with 157 graded and categorized indications and/or TA modalities. The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.

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.21705

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 2,230

Metadata

Authors
Padmanabhan, A., Connelly‐Smith, L., Aqui, N., Balogun, R. A., Klingel, R., Meyer, E., Pham, H. P., Schneiderman, J., Witt, V., Wu, Y., Zantek, N. D., Dunbar, N. M., & Schwartz, G. E. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Apheresis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-06
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
171-354
ISSN
  • 0733-2459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1101
OpenAlex
W1685331907
Cited by
2,230
References
32
FWCI
118.40
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 Eighth Special Issue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jca.21705
The paper
Padmanabhan, A., Connelly‐Smith, L., Aqui, N., Balogun, R. A., Klingel, R., Meyer, E., Pham, H. P., Schneiderman, J., Witt, V., Wu, Y., Zantek, N. D., Dunbar, N. M., & Schwartz, G. E. J. (2019). Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice – Evidence‐Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Eighth Special Issue. Journal of Clinical Apheresis. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21705

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.