Sport Purple for Platelets Day · September 25, 2026
Build a reliable ITP care route behind the purple signal
Visibility matters most when it leads to an understandable entry point, timely hematology expertise, a person-centered plan, safe escalation, and follow-through that remains visible across settings.
Observance context. The Platelet Disorder Support Association identifies Sport Purple for Platelets Day as the last Friday of September, a day to wear purple and raise awareness of immune thrombocytopenia, or ITP, and other platelet disorders. In 2026, the last Friday is September 25. This article translates that awareness signal into an executive operating agenda. It does not provide individual medical advice, prescribe treatment, establish universal laboratory thresholds, or replace qualified hematology judgment, emergency procedures, local policy, or a person’s care team.
The executive accountability case
Do not let a rare-disease message end at recognition
Sport Purple for Platelets Day is designed to make ITP and other platelet disorders more visible. For a hospital or health system, the leadership test begins after the campaign attracts attention. A person may recognize a symptom, seek advice, arrive in an emergency department, ask about a planned procedure, reconsider a treatment burden, become pregnant, transfer between pediatric and adult services, or simply need help explaining persistent fatigue and worry. Each situation can expose whether the organization has a coherent route or a collection of disconnected encounters.
ITP is an autoimmune bleeding disorder characterized by a low platelet count and a clinical experience that can include bruising, petechiae, bleeding, fatigue, fear, restrictions on activity, and treatment burden. A platelet result is important, but current patient-centered literature emphasizes that management decisions also need to account for bleeding, daily function, mental health, priorities, treatment effects, and quality of life.1,6,11,17 That evidence does not tell executives how to treat an individual. It does show why the operating system must capture more than a laboratory value.
The pathway crosses primary care, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, pediatrics, adult hematology, obstetrics, surgery, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, laboratory medicine, care coordination, behavioral health, scheduling, finance, and community-facing services. The pathway may also cross organizations. Reliability therefore depends on decision rights, accepted handoffs, access to expertise, a common view of the plan, and a mechanism for surfacing unresolved work.
Recent studies make that operational challenge concrete. The 2026 I-WISh 2.0 survey included 1,018 patients and 431 physicians across 15 countries. It found substantial daily, social, emotional, and treatment-related burden, along with differences between what patients and physicians reported as common and problematic.1 A separate qualitative study of 18 adults identified fatigue, bruising, petechiae, sleep problems, work effects, worry, activity limitations, cautious behavior, and social effects as salient parts of the experience.6 These studies are cross-sectional or qualitative, not local performance reports. They are useful because they reveal what a pathway can miss when it is organized only around episodic results and visits.
Board-level question
Can the organization demonstrate a reliable route from first concern to qualified assessment, a shared plan, delivery, monitoring, escalation, and transition, while making symptom burden and the person’s goals visible at each handoff?
Leaders should resist two easy substitutions. The first is replacing care reliability with communication volume. Impressions, purple clothing, landmark lighting, and social reach may show campaign participation. They do not show that people could find the right service or complete the next step. The second is replacing person-centered care with a single clinical proxy. A count, order, appointment, or medication transaction is not the same as a closed loop. The executive task is to connect awareness, access, judgment, delivery, experience, and learning without converting an observance into unverified clinical advice.
Current evidence
Make the person behind the platelet count visible
The strongest leadership signal in the recent literature is that ITP burden is multidimensional. In the I-WISh 2.0 survey, approximately one-third of patients described a high impact on daily activities and family or social life, while 54% reported a high impact on emotional well-being. Patients and physicians did not always describe fatigue in the same way: 48% of patients and 29% of physicians reported it as common and problematic.1 Those are distinct respondent groups, not a clinical prevalence comparison. The difference nevertheless supports an operating question: does the routine visit make enough space for the person’s account of symptoms and burden?
The 2026 qualitative concept-elicitation study provides a compact view of that account. Every percentage in Figure 1 comes from the same adult sample of 18 participants. Respondents could report more than one concept. The study used a salience threshold and excluded people with comorbidities in which fatigue was a key symptom. The data therefore describe what this small study group reported, not the prevalence of symptoms in all people with ITP.6
Figure 1 · Evidence chart
Salient symptoms and impacts reported in one adult ITP concept-elicitation study
Horizontal scale: 0% to 100%. Unit: percentage of 18 interviewed adults mentioning each concept. Multiple concepts could be reported.
| Concept | Numerator | Denominator | Reported share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | 17 | 18 interviewed adults | 94% |
| Bruising | 15 | 18 interviewed adults | 83% |
| Petechiae | 13 | 18 interviewed adults | 72% |
| Work impact | 13 | 18 interviewed adults | 72% |
| Worry or fear | 12 | 18 interviewed adults | 67% |
| Limited physical or sporting activity | 10 | 18 interviewed adults | 56% |
| Perceived need for caution to avoid injury | 10 | 18 interviewed adults | 56% |
| Family, friends, and social-life impact | 10 | 18 interviewed adults | 56% |
An executive response should add a small, reliable set of person-reported questions to the pathway rather than create a second disconnected survey. The clinical team still determines what is relevant and safe. Operationally, the system can make room for changes in bleeding, fatigue, function, sleep, emotional burden, treatment burden, work or school participation, and goals. The record should show who reviewed the information, what changed, and when the next review is expected.
Shared decision-making is especially important because ITP treatments differ in mechanisms, schedules, monitoring needs, adverse effects, durability, uncertainty, and burden. The literature recommends a collaborative process that combines professional expertise with patient priorities and health-related quality-of-life information.5,11 The executive contribution is not to select a therapy. It is to provide the time, tools, staffing, medication access processes, monitoring capacity, and documentation structure that allow the decision to be made and revisited well.
Keep diagnosis and risk assessment connected to the full clinical picture
For executives, diagnosis is a reliability problem because the work often begins in nonspecialty settings and depends on exclusions, history, examination, laboratory interpretation, and specialist judgment. A 25-year pediatric retrospective study found that diagnostic testing practice changed as guidelines evolved and examined whether bone marrow aspiration use aligned with the recommendations in place at the time.14 The operational lesson is not to mandate or prohibit a test. It is to ensure that approved diagnostic guidance is current, accessible, and supported by a referral and escalation route.
Bleeding risk also cannot be reduced to one operational shortcut. A 2025 pediatric model study used 286 patients to predict moderate to severe bleeding and reported promising internal test performance, but it requires external validation and qualified oversight before broad use.9 A systematic review of critical bleeds found only 112 patients across 49 eligible studies, with heterogeneous interventions and limited evidence for comparative conclusions.10 Leaders should read those limitations as a reason to protect expert access and emergency readiness, not as permission to deploy an unvalidated score or an improvised treatment algorithm.
A safe operating model defines how a frontline clinician obtains hematology input, where urgent concerns are directed, how the receiving team acknowledges responsibility, how a current medication and bleeding history travels, and who closes the loop after an emergency visit. It also distinguishes education from medical triage. A public awareness message may help someone recognize that unexplained bruising or bleeding deserves attention, but the organization must direct urgent concerns to its approved emergency pathway and avoid embedding universal thresholds in campaign copy.
Strategic continuum
Connect recognition, expertise, treatment, and follow-through
Variation is visible across the recent evidence. A multicenter pediatric initiative reported improved adherence to evidence-based recommendations after introducing standardized management tools.3 An adult hospital study evaluated a pharmacist-developed sequential protocol and reported changes in drug cost and care processes, although its retrospective pre/post design cannot establish that the protocol alone produced every difference.4 European interviews and a physician survey described differences in treatment paradigms and resource use across countries.15 Together, these studies support disciplined standardization of process while preserving individualized clinical judgment.
Figure 2 · Proposed process flowchart
A closed-loop ITP care route for executive review
- Recognize and enterOwner: approved entry service. Provide plain-language access, urgent-care direction, language support, and accessibility.
- Assess and routeOwner: receiving clinical team. Use approved diagnostic and escalation guidance; make the consult status visible.
- Build the shared planOwner: hematology team with the patient or caregiver. Integrate bleeding, function, burden, priorities, and options.
- Deliver and monitorOwner: named clinical and pharmacy roles. Confirm access, education, monitoring, results review, and adverse-effect escalation.
- Protect special situationsOwner: designated multidisciplinary team. Coordinate pregnancy, procedures, hospitalization, emergency care, and co-medications.
- Close the loopOwner: accountable follow-up team. Reconcile the plan, schedule review, resolve barriers, and return learning to pathway owners.
Each stage needs an observable completion signal. “Referral placed” is not the same as “hematology accepted responsibility.” “Medication ordered” is not the same as “medication obtained and monitoring arranged.” “Discharge instructions issued” is not the same as “the next team received the current plan and the person knows where to call.” The signal should be specific enough to reveal where work remains unresolved.
Technology should support the route without becoming its owner. An electronic referral can carry the reason, relevant history, current medication list, urgency assigned under local policy, and contact preference. A shared work queue can show acceptance, status, exceptions, and aging. A person-reported outcome can inform discussion. An alert may highlight a risk, but an alert without a responsible receiver adds noise. The accountable owner remains a person or team with authority, time, and a backup.
Capacity must also be explicit. A public campaign can increase questions and referrals. If communications invite contact without checking hematology access, nurse advice capacity, scheduling rules, interpreter availability, after-hours coverage, and financial-navigation resources, the organization may create demand it cannot receive reliably. The observance plan should therefore include an operational readiness review before messages go live.
Access, equity, and trust
Make the route usable from the first question
Rare-disease care places unusual demands on navigation. People may arrive with limited prior knowledge, conflicting information, a long travel distance, concern about cost, work or school obligations, caregiving responsibilities, language needs, disability-related access needs, or uncertainty about whether a symptom belongs in primary care, urgent care, emergency care, or specialty care. A reliable pathway does not expect the patient to understand the organization chart before receiving help.
The I-WISh studies show that ITP can affect energy, activity, work, emotional well-being, and social life.1,17 Pediatric studies describe fatigue and quality-of-life effects that may be reported differently by children and caregivers.12,16 Those findings reinforce a basic equity principle: access is not complete when an appointment exists on the calendar. It is complete only when the person can understand, reach, participate in, and continue the plan.
Executives can begin with four practical questions. Can a caller find a plain-language entry point? Can the organization provide information in the person’s preferred language and accessible format? Can staff see transportation, scheduling, digital-access, medication-cost, and caregiving barriers before they become missed care? Can the system distinguish a person who declined a next step from one who could not obtain it? Each answer requires a field, a workflow, an owner, and a review practice, not only a statement of intent.
Trust depends on what happens after the organization listens
Listening sessions and advisory input can identify confusion, delays, burden, and language that people experience as dismissive. The organization should document what it heard, what it will change, what it cannot change yet, who owns each action, and when participants will receive an update. Without that return loop, engagement can become extraction.
Communication teams should work from verified content reviewed by qualified clinical and patient-education owners. The message should explain the observance, point to an approved destination, state when emergency services are appropriate under local policy, and avoid implying that purple attire, awareness, a platelet count, or a single symptom establishes a diagnosis. It should also avoid promising appointment speed, treatment access, or outcomes that operations cannot support.
Figure 3 · Qualitative fishbone
Why ITP burden and unresolved work can remain invisible
Special situations and durable follow-through
Protect the moments when context, timing, and ownership change
ITP care becomes especially vulnerable when responsibility crosses a boundary. A planned procedure may involve hematology, surgery, anesthesia, dentistry, pharmacy, laboratory services, and the patient or caregiver. A 2026 multicenter pediatric study described 61 surgeries among 56 patients. Hematology consultation was documented before 89% of procedures with available consultation data, and perioperative ITP-directed treatment varied with platelet-count groups and procedure context.2 The study was retrospective and cannot define a universal pathway. It does show that coordinated preparation is a real operational need.
Pregnancy is another example. A 2025 practical review emphasizes diagnostic differentiation, individualized treatment decisions, delivery planning, and coordination among hematology, obstetrics, anesthesia, and neonatal care.7 A 2024 Delphi consensus also addresses pregnancy, emergencies, and circumstances involving antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapies.13 These sources reflect expert practice in particular contexts. The executive implication is to create a reliable multidisciplinary route, not to convert consensus statements into a universal rule.
Emergency and inpatient transitions deserve the same discipline. Critical bleeding is rare and the comparative treatment evidence is limited.10 A safe system therefore needs rapid access to qualified expertise, approved emergency guidance, medication and blood-product readiness under local policy, and a handoff back to the longitudinal team. The discharge record should state what changed, what remains uncertain, who will review results, when follow-up is expected, and where new or worsening concerns should be directed.
Pediatric-to-adult transition adds developmental and ownership questions. Children and caregivers may describe fatigue and quality of life differently, and responsibilities shift over time.12,16 A transition plan should make the adult receiving team, medication access, monitoring, education, emergency plan, self-management support, and caregiver role visible before pediatric responsibility ends.
Treatment evolution creates further handoff work. Newer therapies use different mechanisms and may introduce distinct access, monitoring, and education requirements.5 A formulary decision, prior authorization, specialty-pharmacy transfer, laboratory schedule, or therapy change can each become a point of failure. Leaders should assign the handoff rather than assume that the prescribing encounter closes it.
Human infrastructure and operating model
Make one accountable system from many expert roles
A strong pathway does not flatten professional expertise. It connects it. Hematology owns specialty assessment and clinical decisions within the organization’s model. Emergency and inpatient teams own immediate care while using approved consultation and escalation routes. Pharmacy supports medication access, education, reconciliation, and monitoring processes. Laboratory services support timely, accurate results and exception handling. Nursing helps surface bleeding, fatigue, treatment effects, function, education needs, and questions. Obstetrics, surgery, anesthesia, dentistry, pediatrics, and primary care join the pathway when the situation requires their expertise. Navigation and scheduling make access and status visible. Information technology supports the queue, shared plan, and measures. Executives assign decision rights, capacity, and review.
The patient or caregiver is not a destination at the edge of this system. The person is a participant whose goals, experience, constraints, and questions influence the plan. Recent reviews explicitly connect shared decision-making and patient-reported outcomes to patient-centered ITP care.11 The operating model should therefore show how the person can ask a question, report a change, understand the next step, and reach the right owner.
Figure 4 · Proposed operating-system diagram
Seven connected controls for reliable ITP care
Support the workforce that makes the route real
Standard work fails when staff cannot access it, interpret it, or perform it within available capacity. Training should use realistic cases that cross settings: a new referral with missing information, a person reporting new bleeding, a medication-access delay, an emergency visit, a planned procedure, pregnancy, a child approaching adult care, or a patient whose fatigue and worry are not reflected in the plan. The exercise should test who owns the next decision, what information is required, how acknowledgment occurs, and where unresolved work appears.
Leaders should also protect psychological safety. A nurse, pharmacist, scheduler, laboratory professional, interpreter, or patient may see a risk that is not visible to the formal decision maker. The pathway needs a respectful way to raise uncertainty and a response standard that does not depend on hierarchy. Debriefs should focus on system conditions, not individual blame, and should feed recurring barriers to a named improvement owner.
Decision-grade measurement
Measure reach, reliability, resolution, experience, and equity
Awareness measures answer whether the message traveled. Care measures answer whether the route worked. Both can be useful, but they should not be merged. A dashboard that reports impressions, purple participation, web visits, or calls should not imply that assessment, treatment, safety, or quality of life improved. Those outcomes require separate definitions, data, and interpretation.
Executives should begin with a small pathway measure set that reveals loss of reliability. Every measure needs a numerator, denominator when applicable, owner, source, inclusion and exclusion rules, cadence, segmentation plan, and known limitation. Stratification should be selected with local community and privacy review. Useful dimensions may include language, age group, geography, payer, disability access need, entry channel, service location, and transition type, but only when definitions are valid and cell sizes protect privacy.
Figure 5 · Structured measurement table
Candidate measures for an accountable ITP pathway
| Decision question | Candidate measure and unit | Denominator | Accountable owner | Cadence | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Can people enter? | Requests that receive an acknowledged owner through an approved channel, percentage and count | All eligible ITP-related requests received through measured channels | Access and hematology operations | Weekly during launch, then monthly | Unmeasured channels and duplicate contacts can distort the rate |
| Does the referral close? | Accepted referrals with a documented disposition, percentage and elapsed time distribution | All accepted eligible referrals in the period | Hematology access leader | Monthly | Disposition does not prove that the person obtained every recommended service |
| Is experience visible? | Visits with locally approved symptom, burden, and goal review documented, percentage | Eligible outpatient ITP visits | Clinical program leader | Monthly sample | Documentation is not proof of a high-quality conversation |
| Are medication barriers resolved? | New or changed therapies with access and monitoring completion status, percentage and unresolved count | Eligible therapy starts or changes | Pharmacy and clinical operations | Weekly work queue, monthly review | Requires a locally defined completion event and integration across pharmacy channels |
| Are transitions protected? | Special-situation plans acknowledged by all required receiving roles before the event, percentage | Eligible procedures, pregnancies, transfers, and other defined transitions | Designated transition owner | Per event, quarterly aggregate | Eligibility and required roles vary by situation |
| Is urgent follow-up reliable? | Emergency or inpatient encounters with the longitudinal plan reconciled and follow-up assigned, percentage | Eligible ITP-related emergency or inpatient encounters | Hospital and hematology operations | Weekly review | Cross-organization encounters may be missing |
| Are barriers unequal? | Access, completion, and unresolved-work measures segmented by validated equity dimensions | The same denominator used for each parent measure | Quality, equity, and privacy leaders | Quarterly | Small cells, missing data, and unstable definitions can mislead |
| Does improvement close? | Recurring barriers with assigned action, due date, completion, and post-change review, count and percentage | All barriers accepted into the pathway improvement log | Executive pathway owner | Monthly | Closing an action item does not prove sustained improvement |
A measure should trigger a decision. A growing queue of unaccepted referrals may require capacity or routing changes. A medication-access backlog may require payer, pharmacy, and clinic workflow redesign. Missing transition acknowledgments may require a standard multidisciplinary checkpoint. A difference by language or geography may require direct community review and targeted barrier testing. A stable dashboard with no improvement action is surveillance without governance.
Patient-reported information should be used with the same discipline. The team must know why it is collected, who reviews it, what response is expected, and how urgent concerns are handled. Collecting fatigue, fear, or treatment burden without a response pathway can create false reassurance and additional burden. Start with the smallest set that the team can reliably review and use.
Public communication
Give every awareness message a real destination
The public call to wear purple can open a valuable conversation. The health system’s contribution should be a verified destination that is ready to receive that conversation. A campaign page can link to the official observance, provide plain-language information reviewed by qualified clinical educators, describe the organization’s approved entry points, and explain how to seek urgent help under local guidance. It should disclose that the observance content is educational and not a diagnosis.
Communications, clinical, legal, accessibility, interpreter, privacy, and operations leaders should review the destination together. The team should test it with people who use assistive technology, people who prefer languages other than English, people on a mobile connection, and people unfamiliar with the health system. The destination should not require prior knowledge of department names or referral rules.
The campaign dashboard should keep communication and care measures side by side but separate. Reach may include page visits, event participation, resource downloads, or calls. Care-route measures may include accepted requests, completed referrals, barrier resolution, and transition acknowledgment. Experience measures may include whether questions were answered and next steps understood. Equity review may show where reach or completion differs. None of these measures should be labeled as a clinical outcome unless the organization has a valid design and evidence for that conclusion.
90-day executive agenda
Use the observance to correct one visible reliability gap
A ninety-day agenda should be narrow enough to complete and meaningful enough to expose the operating system. Choose one defined pathway segment, such as new adult referrals, urgent post-emergency follow-up, medication access after a therapy change, or readiness for a planned procedure. Do not claim enterprise transformation from a short pilot. The goal is to create a tested operating pattern with named owners, transparent limitations, and a decision about what to sustain or redesign.
Figure 6 · Proposed Gantt-style timeline
A 30/60/90-day ITP pathway reliability sequence
Text equivalent
- Days 0–30: name owners, select one pathway segment, listen to patients and frontline teams, map current work, define completion signals, establish measures, and verify communication claims.
- Days 31–60: pilot entry, acknowledgment, navigation, escalation, and work-queue visibility; review reliability, capacity, and segmented barriers weekly.
- Days 61–90: launch the observance destination only when the route is ready, harden backup coverage, return findings to participants, analyze limitations, and decide whether to sustain, scale, or redesign.
Days 0–30: define the route and the evidence boundary
Name an executive owner, a clinical owner, an operational owner, and a patient or caregiver partner. Select one pathway segment and write a scope statement that identifies what the pilot will and will not change. Map the current path from the user’s perspective. Document every entry channel, handoff, waiting state, duplicate intake, escalation, and completion signal. Review current policies, clinical guidance, education, and public copy. Identify contradictions and expired resources without silently rewriting clinical standards outside the proper governance process.
Conduct focused listening with people who have used the route and with frontline roles that receive or move the work. Pay attention to fatigue, fear, work or school disruption, caregiver roles, cost, transportation, language, digital access, and uncertainty about urgency. Translate each verified barrier into an owner and testable change. Define baseline measures before changing the workflow.
Days 31–60: test acknowledgment, navigation, and escalation
Pilot the new route with a bounded group. Make every request visible from receipt through disposition. Require an acknowledgment when responsibility moves. Give staff a simple escalation route for uncertainty, capacity problems, missing information, medication-access delays, and transition risk. Review unresolved work at least weekly. Pair process data with direct feedback from patients, caregivers, and staff so that a cleaner dashboard does not hide a harder experience.
Use brief simulation to test a missing referral element, urgent concern, after-hours call, planned procedure, therapy change, interpreter need, and failed pharmacy handoff. Record where the route depends on memory or personal relationships. Add backup roles and decision rights before expanding.
Days 61–90: connect the public signal to a tested operating destination
Finalize the observance page, internal talking points, staff routing guide, and accessible educational content only after the receiving route has been tested. Monitor contact volume, queue aging, barrier resolution, and staff capacity during the campaign window. Publish no clinical or performance claim that exceeds the evidence or local data.
At day ninety, review what changed, where the system still failed, who experienced the remaining barriers, and whether the pilot should be sustained, scaled, or redesigned. Return the findings to patient and caregiver participants and frontline teams. Archive the approved standard work, measure definitions, decision log, and next review date. A purple campaign becomes credible when the operational learning remains after the color leaves the building.
Leadership close
Make visibility lead somewhere dependable
Sport Purple for Platelets Day can honor people living with ITP and other platelet disorders while giving executives a disciplined question: what happens when awareness creates a need for action?
The standard is not a perfect campaign. It is a usable path with qualified expertise, shared decisions, visible ownership, safe escalation, barrier resolution, and follow-through across ordinary and high-risk transitions. It is an operating system that hears fatigue and worry as well as bleeding, prepares for procedures and pregnancy without pretending one rule fits every person, and distinguishes communication reach from care completion.
Choose one pathway segment this September. Put the patient or caregiver, hematology, nursing, pharmacy, operations, access, technology, and every relevant transition partner around the same problem. Define the next step, the owner, the acknowledgment, the escalation, the completion signal, the measure, and the review date. Then test whether the next person can move through the route without carrying the entire system alone.
Scholarly references
Verified peer-reviewed evidence
References are ordered newest first. The public bibliography links directly to DOI records and does not expose private research-platform routes.
- Cooper, N., Bussel, J., Ghanima, W., Provan, D., Tomiyama, Y., Hou, M., Arnold, D. M., Santoro, C., Zaja, F., Lovrencic, B., Morgan, M., Winograd, M., DiRaimo, J., Boyle, D., Rajkovic-Hooley, O., Vendranas, M., Frade, S., & Kruse, C. (2026). Exploring the Burden on Patients Living With and Receiving Treatment for Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): Patient and Physician Perceptions From the ITP World Impact Survey (I-WISh) 2.0. American Journal of Hematology, 101(8), 1954–1968. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.70379
- Ross, M., Phillips, L., Pierce, K., Charland, D., Haouzi, N. E., Konde, P., Meuler, M., Montcrieff, C., Ukropina, S., Wang, K., Grace, R. F., Klaassen, R. J., Lambert, M. P., Pincez, T., Remiker, A., & Hillier, K. (2026). Treatment Strategies and Outcomes in Pediatric Patients With Immune Thrombocytopenia Undergoing Surgical Procedures: A Multicenter Study. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 73(6), e70283. https://doi.org/10.1002/1545-5017.70283
- Gunn, E., Angulo, P. A., Badawy, S. M., Davini, M., Elkus, H., Hillier, K., Kaicker, S., Lebensburger, J., Luke, N., Scott, K. E., Nakano, T. A., Remiker, A., Rifkin-Zenenberg, S., Schultz, C. L., Buissereth, T., Carrier, K., Durney, J., Dekermanji, A., & Grace, R. F. (2026). Multicenter initiative to standardize management of pediatric immune thrombocytopenia improves adherence to guidelines. Blood Advances, 10(9), 3304–3312. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2025018690
- Presutto, J., Broomfield, A. R., Parsons, S., LaMarc, M., McMahon, A., & Magruder, B. (2026). Impact of a Treatment Protocol for Hospitalized Adults With Acute Immune Thrombocytopenia. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 60(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280251338604
- Huang, K. (2026). Novel therapeutics for immune thrombocytopenia: an evolving treatment landscape. Expert Review of Hematology, 19(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474086.2025.2570332
- Ghanima, W., Cooper, N., Bozzi, S., Daak, A., Gouia, I., Cordoba, M., Barrio, J., Kostikas, M., Cooper, O., & Liebman, H. (2026). A Qualitative Study on Patient Experience with Signs, Symptoms, and Daily Impacts of Immune Thrombocytopenia. Patient, 19(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00762-6
- Matusiak, K., Malinowski, A. K., & Arnold, D. M. (2025). A practical approach to immune thrombocytopenia in pregnancy. Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2025(1), 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1182/hematology.2025000743
- Liang, S., Wu, T., Chai, L., Ai, T., & Lu, S. (2025). Influence of Anxiety Level and Degree of Alexithymia on Quality of Life in Adult Patients With Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatria, 53(6), 1274–1285. https://doi.org/10.62641/aep.v53i6.2026
- Shen, X., Guo, X., Liu, Y., Pan, X., Li, H., Xiao, J., & Wu, L. (2025). Prediction of moderate to severe bleeding risk in pediatric immune thrombocytopenia using machine learning. European Journal of Pediatrics, 184(5), 283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-025-06123-7
- Chowdhury, S. R., Sirotich, E., Guyatt, G., Gill, D., Modi, D., Venier, L. M., Mahamad, S., Chowdhury, M. R., Eisa, K., Beck, C. E., Breakey, V. R., de Wit, K., Porter, S., Webert, K. E., Cuker, A., O’Connor, C., DiRaimo, J. M., Yan, J. W., Manski, C., … Arnold, D. M. (2025). Treatment of Critical Bleeds in Patients With Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review. European Journal of Haematology, 114(3), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.14351
- Maitland, H., Lambert, C., & Ghanima, W. (2024). Patient-centric care in primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): shared decision-making and assessment of health-related quality of life. Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 29(1), 2375177. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078454.2024.2375177
- Özbay, T., & Karapinar, T. H. (2024). An Evaluation on the Quality of Life in Children with Immune Thrombocytopenia. Forbes Journal of Medicine, 5(3), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.4274/forbes.galenos.2024.84803
- Ümit, E. G., Demir, A. M., Ar, M. C., Ayer, M., Aylı, M., Karakuş, V., Kaya, E., Özkalemkaş, F., Sayınalp, N., Sönmez, M., Şahin, F., Toprak, S. K., Toptaş, T., Yavaşoğlu, İ., & Çalış, Ü. (2024). Management of Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia: Turkish Modified Delphi-Based Consensus Statement for Special Considerations. Turkish Journal of Hematology, 41(3), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjh.galenos.2024.2024.0101
- de Pablo, J. G., Zubicaray, J., Iriondo, J., Pérez Maroto, F., Azorín, D., de la Cruz Benito, A., Sanz, A., Madero, L., González-Vicent, M., Sevilla, J., & Sebastián, E. (2024). Diagnostic yield of bone marrow aspiration in paediatric primary immune thrombocytopenia: impact of evolution and adherence to medical guidelines over the last 25 years. European Journal of Pediatrics, 183(8), 3445–3452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05583-7
- Pogna, E. A., Middleton, S., Nazir, J., Ralph, L., Wilson, K., & Jurczak, W. (2021). Characterization and treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in Europe: a qualitative observational study. Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 26(1), 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078454.2021.1992945
- Lassandro, G., Palmieri, V. V., Barone, A., Farruggia, P., Giona, F., Licciardello, M., Marinoni, M., Marzollo, A., Notarangelo, L. D., Palumbo, G., Ramenghi, U., Russo, G., Saracco, P., Spinelli, M., Tolva, A., Tornesello, A., Palladino, V., Noviello, D., & Giordano, P. (2021). Fatigue perception in a cohort of children with chronic immune thrombocytopenia and their caregivers using the PedsQL MFS: Real-life multicenter experience of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 68(3), e28840. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.28840
- Cooper, N., Kruse, A., Kruse, C., Watson, S., Morgan, M., Provan, D., Ghanima, W., Arnold, D. M., Tomiyama, Y., Santoro, C., Michel, M., Laborde, S., Lovrencic, B., Hou, M., Bailey, T., Taylor-Stokes, G., Haenig, J., & Bussel, J. B. (2021). Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) World Impact Survey (I-WISh): Impact of ITP on health-related quality of life. American Journal of Hematology, 96(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26036