Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 684

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1,061 of the 1,061 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 Ninth Special Issue

Connelly‐Smith, Laura, Alquist, Caroline R., Aqui, Nicole A., Hofmann, Jan C., Klingel, Reinhard, Onwuemene, Oluwatoyosi A., Patriquin, Christopher J., Pham, Huy P., Sanchez, Amber P., Schneiderman, Jennifer, Witt, Volker, Zantek, Nicole D., Dunbar, Nancy M.·2023·Journal of Clinical Apheresis
DOI 10.1002/jca.22043
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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. In the Ninth Edition, the JCA Special Issue Writing Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence‐based approaches in the grading of evidence and categorization of apheresis indications to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases and conditions. This edition has largely maintained the general layout and concept of a fact sheet introduced in the Fourth Edition (2007). Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of TA in a specific disease or medical condition. The Ninth Edition of the JCA Special Issue comprises 91 fact sheets and 166 graded and categorized indications. This includes seven new fact sheets, nine new indications on existing fact sheets, and eight changes in the category for existing indications. The Ninth 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.22043

Cites

1061 of 1061 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

1 retracted

Items 801–1,000 of 1,061

Metadata

Authors
Connelly‐Smith, L., Alquist, C. R., Aqui, N. A., Hofmann, J. C., Klingel, R., Onwuemene, O. A., Patriquin, C. J., Pham, H. P., Sanchez, A. P., Schneiderman, J., Witt, V., Zantek, N. D., & Dunbar, N. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Apheresis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-04
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
77-278
ISSN
  • 0733-2459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1101
DOI
10.1002/jca.22043
OpenAlex
W4362602027
Cited by
684
References
1,061
FWCI
67.14
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.