ArticleCureus2020
Blood Group Rhesus D-negativity and Awareness Toward Importance of Anti-D Immunoglobulin Among Pregnant Women in Bisha, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of maternal knowledge towards Rhesus incompatibility and their attitude about its preventive measures in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Knowledge about Rh-incompatibility and its associated factors among antenatal care recipients in public hospitals of Wolaita zone, 2022: facility-based cross-sectional study.BMJ public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Rhesus D (RhD) antigen alloimmunization has been a focus of concern for hematologists and obstetricians. It contributes to perinatal morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to assess the awareness of pregnant women toward the clinical importance of blood group Rh(D)-negativity and anti-D immunoglobulin and to determine the prevalence of blood group Rh(D)-negativity among them. Methods and materials This cross-sectional study was conducted in a routine antenatal care clinic of King Abdullah Hospital in Bisha, Saudi Arabia from September 2018 to January 2019. The awareness of pregnant women toward the clinical importance of blood group Rh(D)-negativity and prophylaxis with anti-D immunoglobulin was assessed through a self-administered questionnaire. Samples were analyzed for ABO and Rh (D) blood groups using the microplate grouping method. The presence of anti-D alloantibodies was detected by the indirect antiglobulin test. Data were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 108 respondents fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Forty-five pregnant women (41.7%) were observed to be aware of the blood group Rh(D)-negativity and anti-D immunoglobulin issue. The prevalence of the negative blood group was 11.1% (12/108). Awareness was found to be significantly associated with age, education, vaginal bleeding, blood groups, and previous administration of anti-D immunoglobulin (p-value ≤0.05). Conclusion The prevalence of blood group Rh(D)-negativity among respondents was found to be comparative with other populations, although the overall awareness was found to be suboptimal (41.7%). Structured health education programs by hematologists and obstetricians are needed to increase awareness and to address women at reproductive age.
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.