Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 586

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease

Open access
James, Paula D., Connell, Nathan T., Ameer, Barbara, Di Paola, Jorge, Eikenboom, Jeroen, Giraud, Nicolas, Haberichter, Sandra, Jacobs-Pratt, Vicki, Konkle, Barbara, McLintock, Claire, McRae, Simon, R. Montgomery, Robert, O’Donnell, James S., Scappe, Nikole, Sidonio, Robert, Flood, Veronica H., Husainat, Nedaa, Kalot, Mohamad A., Mustafa, Reem A.·2021·Blood Advances

Abstract

Background: von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder known in humans. Accurate and timely diagnosis presents numerous challenges. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about VWD diagnosis. Methods: ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH established a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 4 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) supported the guideline-development process, including performing or updating systematic evidence reviews up to 8 January 2020. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subsequently subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 11 recommendations. Conclusions: Key recommendations of these guidelines include the role of bleeding-assessment tools in the assessment of patients suspected of VWD, diagnostic assays and laboratory cutoffs for type 1 and type 2 VWD, how to approach a type 1 VWD patient with normalized levels over time, and the role of genetic testing vs phenotypic assays for types 2B and 2N. Future critical research priorities are also identified.

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/bloodadvances.2020003265

Cites

43 of 43 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 43 references

Metadata

Authors
James, P. D., Connell, N. T., Ameer, B., Di Paola, J., Eikenboom, J., Giraud, N., Haberichter, S., Jacobs-Pratt, V., Konkle, B., McLintock, C., McRae, S., R. Montgomery, R., O’Donnell, J. S., Scappe, N., Sidonio, R., Flood, V. H., Husainat, N., Kalot, M. A., & Mustafa, R. A.
Venue
Blood Advances
Published
2021-01-12
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
280-300
ISSN
  • 2473-9529 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-9537
OpenAlex
W3121114429
Cited by
586
References
43
FWCI
48.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003265
The paper
James, P. D., Connell, N. T., Ameer, B., Di Paola, J., Eikenboom, J., Giraud, N., Haberichter, S., Jacobs-Pratt, V., Konkle, B., McLintock, C., McRae, S., R. Montgomery, R., O’Donnell, J. S., Scappe, N., Sidonio, R., Flood, V. H., Husainat, N., Kalot, M. A., & Mustafa, R. A. (2021). ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease. Blood Advances. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003265

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.