Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,690

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardization of terminology, definitions and outcome criteria in immune thrombocytopenic purpura of adults and children: report from an international working group

Open access
Rodeghiero, Francesco, Stasi, Roberto, Gernsheimer, Terry, Michel, Marc, Provan, Drew, Arnold, Donald M., Bussel, James B., Cines, Douglas B., Chong, Beng H., Cooper, Nichola, Godeau, Bertrand, Lechner, Klaus, Mazzucconi, Maria Gabriella, McMillan, Robert, Sanz, Miguel A., Imbach, Paul, Blanchette, Victor, Kühne, Thomas, Ruggeri, Marco, George, James N.·2009·Blood
DOI 10.1182/blood-2008-07-162503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Diagnosis and management of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) remain largely dependent on clinical expertise and observations more than on evidence derived from clinical trials of high scientific quality. One major obstacle to the implementation of such studies and in producing reliable meta-analyses of existing data is a lack of consensus on standardized critical definitions, outcome criteria, and terminology. Moreover, the demand for comparative clinical trials has dramatically increased since the introduction of new classes of therapeutic agents, such as thrombopoietin receptor agonists, and innovative treatment modalities, such as anti-CD 20 antibodies. To overcome the present heterogeneity, an International Working Group of recognized expert clinicians convened a 2-day structured meeting (the Vicenza Consensus Conference) to define standard terminology and definitions for primary ITP and its different phases and criteria for the grading of severity, and clinically meaningful outcomes and response. These consensus criteria and definitions could be used by investigational clinical trials or cohort studies. Adoption of these recommendations would serve to improve communication among investigators, to enhance comparability among clinical trials, to facilitate meta-analyses and development of therapeutic guidelines, and to provide a standardized framework for regulatory agencies.

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 · 10.1182/blood-2008-07-162503

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 2,690

Metadata

Authors
Rodeghiero, F., Stasi, R., Gernsheimer, T., Michel, M., Provan, D., Arnold, D. M., Bussel, J. B., Cines, D. B., Chong, B. H., Cooper, N., Godeau, B., Lechner, K., Mazzucconi, M. G., McMillan, R., Sanz, M. A., Imbach, P., Blanchette, V., Kühne, T., Ruggeri, M., & George, J. N.
Venue
Blood
Publisher
American Society of Hematology
Published
2009-03-12
Volume
113
Issue
11
Pages
2386-2393
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
DOI
10.1182/blood-2008-07-162503
OpenAlex
W1984073642
Cited by
2,690
References
31
FWCI
43.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Standardization of terminology, definitions and outcome criteria in immune thrombocytopenic purpura of adults and children: report from an international working group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2008-07-162503
The paper
Rodeghiero, F., Stasi, R., Gernsheimer, T., Michel, M., Provan, D., Arnold, D. M., Bussel, J. B., Cines, D. B., Chong, B. H., Cooper, N., Godeau, B., Lechner, K., Mazzucconi, M. G., McMillan, R., Sanz, M. A., Imbach, P., Blanchette, V., Kühne, T., Ruggeri, M., & George, J. N. (2009). Standardization of terminology, definitions and outcome criteria in immune thrombocytopenic purpura of adults and children: report from an international working group. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-07-162503

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.