ArticlePloS one2020
Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 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
- Observational
- Red blood cell alloimmunization and pregnancy: Diagnosis and management.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Article
- Case report: Double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) for severe rhesus-D alloimmunization in two pregnant patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- 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
- Prevalence of rhesus D-negative blood type and the challenges of rhesus D immunoprophylaxis among obstetric population in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2021Review
- Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2020.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2020Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral anti-D immunoglobulin strategies exist for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This study systematically assessed the clinical value of those therapeutic strategies.
methodsThe Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible studies that evaluated the value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies in preventing maternal anti-D antibody sensitization. Combined odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 14.2 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 software.
resultsTwenty-four original studies involving 64860 patients were included. Among all therapeutic measures, injecting 300 μg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 5/E) appeared to be the most effective measure for preventing maternal antibody sensitization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.8%), while a single injection at 28 gestational weeks (SUCRA = 89.2%) was the second most effective. Administering no injection or a placebo (SUCRA = 0.0%) was the least effective intervention measure.
conclusionAmong the therapeutic measures, antenatal 5/E appeared to be the best method for reducing the positive incidence of anti-D antibodies in the maternal serum; thus, it may be the most effective treatment for preventing fetal hemolytic disease.
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.