SynthesisPloS one2012
Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in women who are Rh(D) negative: meta-analyses adjusted for differences in study design and quality.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- FIGO/ICM guidelines for preventing Rhesus disease: A call to action.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021Guideline
- Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Pooled it
- Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Non-invasive foetal RhD genotyping to guide anti-D prophylaxis: an external quality assurance workshop.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2018Trial
- A Review of Methods for Research Synthesis.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Red blood cell alloimmunization and pregnancy: Diagnosis and management.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Noninvasive fetal blood group antigen genotyping.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2025Review
- Analysis of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in 100 pregnant women with Rh-negative blood type.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Single-exon approach to non-invasive fetal RHD screening in early pregnancy: An update after 10 years' experience.Vox sanguinis · 2022Article
- Following targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis, almost half of the pregnant women had undetectable anti-D prophylaxis at delivery.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Observational
- Calibrating Natural History of Cancer Models in the Presence of Data Incompatibility: Problems and Solutions.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Article
- Uncertain About Uncertainty: How Qualitative Expressions of Forecaster Confidence Impact Decision-Making With Uncertainty Visualizations.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Article
- Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science.Royal Society open science · 2019Review
- Use of a random effects meta-analysis in the design and analysis of a new clinical trial.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Informatics: Make sense of health data.Nature · 2015Article
- Survey on the prevention and incidence of haemolytic disease of the newborn in Italy.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2013Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate the effectiveness of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for preventing sensitisation in pregnant Rhesus negative women, and to explore whether this depends on the treatment regimen adopted.
methodsTen studies identified in a previous systematic literature search were included. Potential sources of bias were systematically identified using bias checklists, and their impact and uncertainty were quantified using expert opinion. Study results were adjusted for biases and combined, first in a random-effects meta-analysis and then in a random-effects meta-regression analysis.
resultsIn a conventional meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio for sensitisation was estimated as 0.25 (95% CI 0.18, 0.36), comparing routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to control, with some heterogeneity (I² = 19%). However, this naïve analysis ignores substantial differences in study quality and design. After adjusting for these, the pooled odds ratio for sensitisation was estimated as 0.31 (95% CI 0.17, 0.56), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 0%). A meta-regression analysis was performed, which used the data available from the ten anti-D prophylaxis studies to inform us about the relative effectiveness of three licensed treatments. This gave an 83% probability that a dose of 1250 IU at 28 and 34 weeks is most effective and a 76% probability that a single dose of 1500 IU at 28-30 weeks is least effective.
conclusionThere is strong evidence for the effectiveness of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for prevention of sensitisation, in support of the policy of offering routine prophylaxis to all non-sensitised pregnant Rhesus negative women. All three licensed dose regimens are expected to be effective.
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.