Trial reportBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2014
The importance of antenatal prevention of RhD immunisation in the first pregnancy.
Trial report in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recombinant anti-D for prevention of maternal-foetal Rh(D) alloimmunization: a randomized multi-centre clinical trial.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2020Article
- Article
- Anti-D monoclonal antibodies from 23 human and rodent cell lines display diverse IgG Fc-glycosylation profiles that determine their clinical efficacy.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin with Polyclonal Anti-Rh (D) Immunoglobulin for the Prevention of Maternal Rh-Isoimmunization.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2019Article
- Anti-D Antibodies in Pregnant D Variant Antigen Carriers Initially Typed as RhD.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to examine which pregnancies are associated with RhD immunisation and haemolytic disease of foetus and newborn (HDFN) when postnatal RhD prophylaxis is applied. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included pregnancies with RhD immunisation; each of the pregnant women received anti-D immunoglobulin after delivery, miscarriage or invasive antenatal diagnostic procedures. For each pregnancy we analysed the order of pregnancy that caused immunisation as well as the order of the monitored pregnancy and whether the anti-D antibodies caused HDFN.
resultsAnti-D antibody was detected in 1.2% of RhD-negative pregnancies. Out of 89 monitored pregnancies, 56 (63%) were immunised by the first pregnancy, 21 (24%) by the second one, and 12 (13%) by subsequent pregnancies. HDFN occurred in 28 cases; 25 of them were the consequence of the immunisation in the first pregnancy. The most severe cases of HDFN, perinatal death (n=2) and intrauterine transfusion (n=7) were consequence of immunisation during the first pregnancy. Significantly more cases of HDFN were caused by immunisation in the first pregnancy than by immunisation in subsequent pregnancies (χ(2)=12, p<0.01).
conclusionRhD immunisation could be reduced in more than half cases by administering anti-D immunoglobulin at the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy, especially the first pregnancy.
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.