Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange for treatment of autoimmune hemolytic anemia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in adult patients with autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA). METHODS: A search of major English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of TPE against no TPE in adult AIHA patients was performed. Outcomes were remission incidence, hematological parameters (ie, hemoglobin count, red blood cell count, reticulocyte percentage, total bilirubin, and hematocrit) and adverse event incidence. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs containing 906 patients were included. A majority of RCTs were given an unclear risk of bias. TPE was associated with increased remission incidence (risk ratio [RR] = 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15-1.30) and improved hematological parameters. TPE was also associated with an insignificant increase in adverse event incidence (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.86). Publication bias was detected for remission incidence and reticulocyte percentage, and it may have led to an overestimation of beneficial improvements in reticulocyte percentage. CONCLUSION: TPE was associated with both increased remission incidence and improved hematological parameters. It is capable of improving short-term hematological parameters to stabilize acute AIHA onset. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the unclear risk of bias and the presence of publication biases. We were not able to determine the treatment effects for cold and warm AIHA separately due to a lack of subgroup data. Future RCTs incorporating larger sample sizes with subgroup data for warm and cold AIHA are needed to validate our findings and establish subgroup efficacy and safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".