Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25491600›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2014

Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review.

Trina M Fyfe, M Jane Ritchey, Christorina Taruc, Daniel Crompton, Brian Galliford, Rose Perrin

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Trina M FyfeNorthern Medical Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Canada. trina.fyfe@unbc.ca.
M Jane RitcheyNorthern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., V2L 5B8, Prince George, BC, Canada. jane.ritchey@northernhealth.ca.
Christorina TarucNorthern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., V2L 5B8, Prince George, BC, Canada. christonrina.taruc@northernhealth.ca.
Daniel CromptonNorthern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., V2L 5B8, Prince George, BC, Canada. daniel.crompton@northernhealth.ca.
Brian GallifordNorthern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., V2L 5B8, Prince George, BC, Canada. brian.galliford@northernhealth.ca.
Rose PerrinNorthern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., V2L 5B8, Prince George, BC, Canada. rose04perrin@gmail.com.
Northern Health · AUUniversity of Northern British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings.

methodsA scoping review framework was used to structure the process. The following databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), and Web of Science (ISI). In addition, hand searching of article references was conducted. The search yielded 301 articles. Thirty-five articles remained for review after screening. Two team members reviewed each article using a detailed data collection sheet. A third reviewer was utilized if discrepancies occurred amongst reviewers.

resultsThe review process yielded 18 included articles. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. Of the 18 studies, 15 were retrospective studies. The articles were largely conducted in one institution. The articles with a focus on routine antenatal provision of anti-D immunoglobulin found that it was given 80 to 90% of the time. Postpartum provision of anti-D immunoglobulin had significantly higher results of 95-100%. The review found that the delivery of anti-D immunoglobulin to RhD negative pregnant women during situations of potential sensitizing events was suboptimal.

conclusionsThe included articles examine the management of RhD negative pregnancies in various countries with existing national guidelines. The existing evidence indicates an opportunity for quality improvement in situations where potential sensitizing events are not at routine times in pregnancy, such as miscarriage or fetal demise early in pregnancy. Routine care for the prevention of RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy and postpartum appears to be fairly consistent. The paucity of recent literature in this area leads to a recommendation for further research.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleAbortion, SpontaneousAnemia, HemolyticFemaleFetal DeathHumansPostpartum PeriodPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal CarePrenatal DiagnosisRetrospective StudiesRh IsoimmunizationRho(D) Immune GlobulinUnited KingdomRho(D) Immune Globulin

Identifiers

PMID25491600
PMCPMC4265333
OpenAlexW2083050274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.