Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42316838›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2026

Variation in Chronic Automated Red Cell Exchange Practices for Sickle Cell Disease: Insights Into Isovolemic Hemodilution Use.

Jennifer M Jones, Fatima Aldarweesh, Nicole Aqui, Aleh Bobr, Patricia Brunker, Mischa L Covington, Juliana Guarente, Robert Hagar, Matthew Karafin, Divjot Singh Lamba and 18 more

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

28 authors.

Jennifer M JonesDepartment of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-4486
Fatima AldarweeshUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8295-1405
Nicole AquiHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Aleh BobrUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1597-8071
Patricia BrunkerMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1866-0237
Mischa L CovingtonBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5452-4529
Juliana GuarenteThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0826-0088
Robert HagarUniversity of California San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA.
Matthew KarafinUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Divjot Singh LambaPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0961-0369
Grace LeeDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-2466
Wen LuMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2292-3167
Ethan A MackColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4529-4917
Gagan MuthurUniversity of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Saadiya NazliMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Halima OlaniyanIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Chinelo P OnyenekwuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9906-9694
Jay S RavalRobert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Divya SetyaYashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2593-5235
Yvette C TanhehcoColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7800-3119
Mamie ThantDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Angelica ViveroThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0251-3593
Yanyun WuMiami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Edward C C WongQuest Diagnostics, Chantilly, Virginia, USA.
Nalan YurtseverYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7807-6046
Yan ZhengSt Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-7564
Patricia A ShiSeattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7954-0055
Jennifer WebbDepartment of Pediatrics and Pathology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-4963

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior surveys of chronic automated red blood cell exchange (RCE) for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) have identified considerable procedural variability, especially with the use of isovolemic hemodilution red blood cell exchange (IHD-RCE). We conducted a survey of chronic RCE practices among American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) members to identify opportunities for practice harmonization and future studies. The ASFA SCD Research Subcommittee developed a 72-item survey of chronic RCE practices, with a focus on IHD-RCE. The survey was validated internally and distributed by email to all ASFA members from September 2024 to February 2025. One survey response from each institution was retained for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed. Sixty-two survey responses, including three from international institutions, were retained for analysis. Sixty-one percent of respondents (38/62) reported using at least one fixed RCE target, with end hematocrit being the most common fixed parameter (40%, 25/62), followed by fraction of cells remaining (31%, 19/62) and hemoglobin S% (27%, 17/62). Most respondents (60%, 37/61) performed IHD-RCE at their institution, though other details such as the minimum hematocrit, exclusion criteria, and response to adverse effects were variable. Consistent pre- and post-RCE laboratory monitoring practices were reported. Consistent with earlier surveys, procedural variability in chronic RCE practices for patients with SCD is observed. This highlights opportunities to compare outcomes where practice variability exists. Consensus guidelines based on institutional practices with optimal outcomes should be developed.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellBlood Component RemovalErythrocyte TransfusionHemodilutionHematocritHumansSurveys and Questionnairesautomated red blood cell exchangepractice variabilitysickle cell diseasesurvey

Identifiers

PMID42316838
PMCPMC13280177

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.