Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41711290›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2026

When Strong Recommendations Rest on Weak Evidence: Lessons From Therapeutic Apheresis Guidelines.

Jeremy W Jacobs, Garrett S Booth, Brian D Adkins, Victoria Costa, Sheharyar Raza, Yara A Park, Joseph Yossi Schwartz, Evan M Bloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jeremy W JacobsDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5719-9685
Garrett S BoothDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8422-9480
Brian D AdkinsDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9480-2762
Victoria CostaDepartment of Pathology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Sheharyar RazaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8247-1484
Yara A ParkDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7805-8497
Joseph Yossi SchwartzFoundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT), Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Evan M BlochDivision of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8181-9517

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS 1K23HL151826
6 · The paper itself

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

Blood Component RemovalPractice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID41711290
PMCPMC12918504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.