ReviewTransfusion2012
RhIG for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia: consensus and controversy (CME).
Review in Transfusion, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The THOR network best practices for females of childbearing potential with life-threatening hemorrhage: Guidance for emergency medical services and hospitals.Transfusion · 2026Review
- A Clinician Perspective for a Personalized Approach to Management of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia with Targeted Therapies Alone or in Combination.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): Current Limitations in Patient Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
- Dealing with a critical national shortage-Approaches to triaging immune globulin supply in pediatric hematology and oncology.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2020Article
- Immune Thrombocytopenia in Children: Consensus and Controversies.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2020Review
- Updated international consensus report on the investigation and management of primary immune thrombocytopenia.Blood advances · 2019Article
- The Centenary of Immune Thrombocytopenia-Part 2: Revising Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Review
- Laparoscopic splenectomy for primary immune thrombocytopenia: Current status and challenges.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
- Diagnosis and management of autoimmune cytopenias in childhood.Pediatric clinics of North America · 2013Review
- Immune thrombocytopenia.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anti-D immune globulin (RhIG) is a front-line option in North America for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in children and adults. Recently, addition of a Food and Drug Administration-mandated black box warning highlighted the risks of intravascular hemolysis, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation after anti-D infusion, prompting concern within the medical community regarding its use. A working group convened in response to this warning to prepare a consensus document regarding the safety of RhIG because there has been no increased incidence of adverse events since the initial discovery of these reactions many years ago. The efficacy of anti-D is well documented and only briefly reviewed. The estimated incidence and proposed mechanisms for the rare, major treatment-related complications are discussed, and signal detection data associated with heightened risk of acute hemolytic reactions are presented. The importance of considering host factors, given the rarity of severe reactions, is emphasized. Safety profiles of parallel treatment options are reviewed. The working group consensus is that RhIG has comparable safety and efficacy to other front-line agents for the treatment of children and adults with ITP. Safety may be further improved by careful patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.