ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Evaluation of clinical response according to category and level of evidence for therapeutic plasma exchange indications: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An automatic consult reply system for therapeutic plasma exchange using retrieval-augmented generation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The present study investigates the indications of patients who underwent therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) based on the category and level of evidence outlined in the 2023 guidelines of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) and evaluates their treatment responses. Methodology: This retrospective study, the records of patients who underwent TPE at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Medical Faculty Hospital between January 2020 to December 2024 were reviewed, including their demographic characteristics, indications, plasmapheresis procedure data and complications. The indications were classified according to the categories, levels of evidence and treatment responses laid out in the ASFA 2023 guidelines. Results: A total of 234 adult patients were included in the study, of whom 56.4% were female. Hematological (41.9%) and neurological (38.5%) disorders accounted for the majority of the conditions treated with TPE. Of the total, 53% of the patients were classified as Category-I, while the total proportion of patients with Grade-IA, IB and IC evidence levels was 64.5%. The complete response rate was 35.5% in Category-I patients, the partial response rate was 48.6% in Category-II patients and the no response rate was 50% in Category-III patients. Patients with hematological and neurological disorders recorded high clinical response rates, while rarer conditions showed low clinical response rates. A significant relationship was found between category and level of evidence and clinical response (p<0.05). Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of TPE is significantly associated with the ASFA category and the level of evidence of the indications. The findings of the present study highlight the need to refer to evidence-based guidelines when planning TPE procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.