ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2026
When Strong Recommendations Rest on Weak Evidence: Lessons From Therapeutic Apheresis Guidelines.
Article in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2026. 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.
- Apheresis Medicine as a Multidisciplinary Subspecialty: International Models for Training, Quality, and Professional Societies.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) guidelines serve as a global standard for therapeutic apheresis practice. However, our analysis of the 2023 guidelines reveals discordance between the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. Among 166 indications, one-third carry strong recommendations, yet only 8% are supported by high-quality evidence. Over half (55%) are informed by low- or very-low quality evidence. This mismatch is most pronounced for Category I indications, where apheresis is considered first-line therapy: nearly one-third are based on low-quality data, yet 89% receive strong recommendations. Weak evidence is nine times more likely to prompt a strong recommendation for Category I versus Category III indications. This misalignment risks overutilization of apheresis, introduces ethical hurdles for clinical trials by diminishing equipoise, and may mislead patient expectations during informed consent. We advocate for greater transparency by stating the rationale underlying strong recommendations despite low-quality evidence, acknowledgment of uncertainty where applicable, and suggested research to strengthen the evidence.
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.