Lyu R.-K.Chen W.-H.SUNG-TSANG HSIEH2020-03-022020-03-0220021091-6660https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0036247333&doi=10.1046%2fj.1526-0968.2002.00382.x&partnerID=40&md5=9bcd645186fd5289a06ba105e82bb8c5https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/467817Previous studies have shown that both plasma exchange (PE) and double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) are effective treatments in Guillain-Barr? syndrome (GBS). Whether PE and DFPP have similar effects in GBS is not clear. This report compares the therapeutic effectiveness of PE and DFPP in GBS patients treated in 3 major hospitals in northern Taiwan. A total of 102 patients were included in this survey, including 39 with PE (hereafter PE group) and 63 with DFPP (hereafter DFPP group). Both groups showed significant improvement of disability scores after treatment. However, time to onset of effect was shorter (5.6 ± 3.5 versus 7 ± 3.4 days, p < 0.05), and changes of disability scores were more prominent (1.3 ± 0.8 versus 0.8 ± 0.8, p < 0.05) in the PE group than the DFPP group. Mortality and outcome after 6 months were not different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, both PE and DFPP are effective treatments in GBS. PE was superior to DFPP in short-term effectiveness. The long-term effectiveness was not different.[SDGs]SDG3adult; aged; article; controlled study; disability; double filtration plasmapheresis; female; Guillain Barre syndrome; human; intermethod comparison; major clinical study; male; mortality; plasmapheresis; priority journal; treatment outcome; Female; Filtration; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Plasma Exchange; Plasmapheresis; Treatment Outcomejournal article10.1046/j.1526-0968.2002.00382.x119829592-s2.0-0036247333