Talk:Cerus Corporation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 16 July 2021 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Moved here from Cerus Corporation (diff)

- The usual way is to go to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, change your search settings to include only reviews and systematic reviews from the last 5 years, and search for your desired topic. It seems like there are a couple of open access reviews that cover their products (although one of them was funded by Cerus, so should be treated with caution). You can request access to paywalled sources at WP:RX; if you cannot find a suitable WP:MEDRS source for a medical claim, then it should be removed. Spicy (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added four journal sources that cover many citation aspects in the article. Two appear to have no COI, Schlenke got a speaking fee but still criticises the product, and Hashem received equipment loans but the paper only adds citations for one regional affliction (MERS). Frazierjason (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed a common early side effect in the journal sources from Picker (claims no COI) and Schlenke (did receive speaking fees from Cerus yet still calls out issues), that each of these papers state the treated blood infusions had sometimes reduced platelet function and caused some patients to experienced increases in bleeding, and that later product revisions had significantly reduced this issue. Schlenke also described a Phase III clinical study with red blood cells (and whole blood by extension) was prematurely halted with two patients having complications with antibodies forming against the infused blood cells, and since has restarted in Phase I with an improvement in their UV chemical compound quenching process. I am not clear if these criticisms should be included into the article; it seems like they should, but I am not confident on my ability to place these points in the existing text without making the article feel disjointed. I also am pretty amateur at reading these papers and welcome more seasoned medical contributors to have a closer look and perhaps state things more accurately than I can. Frazierjason (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am happy to collaborate. Also happy to continue digging and provide additional WP:ORGCRIT where I can find it. Can you help me understand why WP:ORGCRIT is not found in the lengthy original articles written completely about Cerus by NYT and SF Chron, or the 8+ paragraph articles written by AP about Cerus in Gettysburg Times and Tuscaloosa News? These are entire articles focusing on the company, its product and the industry reception/feedback. Where available, I also included datapoints from these papers that were critical in nature in order to stay neutral and provide the contrary points. I should be clear that I am not a COI author for Cerus, I do not work for Cerus, own any stock or stake in them, and I burned my own nights and weekends in doing this article. I do work for Cerence (totally unrelated public traded company in automotive speech and AI, spun off from Nuance_Communications) and I had somewhat recently listed a Request for Article with references. While adding references, I saw that Cerus has been clerk-endorsed for a super long time even though it's the only other NASDAQ listed company in the queue, which is depressing in considering my own hopeful timeline. I figured that if I only fret and do nothing, I am not helping anyone, so I decided to draft the article for Cerus. I feel the only COI I could be accused of is wanting to reduce the backlog of requested articles in hopes that Cerence would get its article at some point. I don't feel that influences my objective effort to draft and collaborate on a Cerus article that eventually reaches WP standards. Frazierjason (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Use Authorization for Convalescent Plasma

So I found an official source stating that the FDA issued such an authorization, but it doesn't mention Cerus by name. Seems more like the use of convalescent plasma was approved in general, ie not specific to Cerus. Added the source anyway, but happy to discuss whether that was the right move. Abraxxass12 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]