Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of acquired hemophilia A

Open access
Collins, Peter, Baudo, Francesco, Huth-Kühne, Angela, Ingerslev, Jørgen, Kessler, Craig M, Castellano, Maria E Mingot, Shima, Midori, St-Louis, Jean, Lévesque, Hervé·2010·BMC Research Notes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a rare bleeding disorder caused by an autoantibody to coagulation factor (F) VIII. It is characterized by soft tissue bleeding in patients without a personal or family history of bleeding. Bleeding is variable, ranging from acute, life-threatening hemorrhage, with 9-22% mortality, to mild bleeding that requires no treatment. AHA usually presents to clinicians without prior experience of the disease, therefore diagnosis is frequently delayed and bleeds under treated. METHODS: Structured literature searches were used to support expert opinion in the development of recommendations for the management of patients with AHA. RESULTS: Immediate consultation with a hemophilia center experienced in the management of inhibitors is essential to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The laboratory finding of prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time with normal prothrombin time is typical of AHA, and the diagnosis should be considered even in the absence of bleeding. The FVIII level and autoantibody titer are not reliable predictors of bleeding risk or response to treatment. Most patients with AHA are elderly; comorbidities and underlying conditions found in 50% of patients often influence the clinical picture. Initial treatment involves the control of acute bleeding with bypassing agents. Immunosuppressive treatment to eradicate the FVIII inhibitor should be started as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed to reduce the time the patient is at risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations aim to increase awareness of this disorder among clinicians in a wide range of specialties and provide practical advice on diagnosis and treatment.

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 · 10.1186/1756-0500-3-161

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
Collins, P., Baudo, F., Huth-Kühne, A., Ingerslev, J., Kessler, C. M., Castellano, M. E. M., Shima, M., St-Louis, J., & Lévesque, H.
Venue
BMC Research Notes
Published
2010-06-07
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
161-161
ISSN
1756-0500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060795722
Cited by
193
References
1
FWCI
5.03
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: Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of acquired hemophilia A. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1756-0500-3-161
The paper
Collins, P., Baudo, F., Huth-Kühne, A., Ingerslev, J., Kessler, C. M., Castellano, M. E. M., Shima, M., St-Louis, J., & Lévesque, H. (2010). Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of acquired hemophilia A. BMC Research Notes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-161

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.