Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37900088›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medicine and life2023

Misclassification of RhD variants among pregnant women: a systematic review.

Amani Yousef Owaidah, Lamya Zohair Yamani

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medicine and life, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amani Yousef OwaidahDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Lamya Zohair YamaniDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The D antigen of the Rh blood group is considered clinically significant due to its ability to cause hemolytic transfusion reactions and hemolytic disease in the fetus and newborn. This systematic review discusses the prevalence of RhD variants among pregnant women and the importance of including RhD genotyping for prenatal testing to detect RhD variants and prevent anti-D alloimmunization. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using scientific search engines, including PubMed and MEDLINE databases, with the keywords 'anti-D alloimmunization', 'RhD variant', and 'pregnant women.' The review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using MedCalc version 20. A significance level of p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant for all two-tailed tests. The meta-analysis included four articles that met the inclusion criteria. The total prevalence of RhD positivity (RhD+) was 61% (95% CI:34%-85%). The prevalence ranged from 22% to 82%, indicating a high degree of heterogeneity between studies (I2=98.71%, p<0.0001). The overall prevalence of D variants was 15% (95% CI, 9%-23%) with a prevalence of 0.05% to 100%, showing a high degree of heterogeneity between studies (I2=99.89%, p<0.0001). Anti-D alloimmunization could occur in pregnant women with some types of RhD variants. All four studies focused on molecular testing of samples showing inconsistent or weak results with at least two anti-D antibodies using serological methods.

Indexed as

FetusPregnant PeopleFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPrevalenceanti-D alloimmunizationHDFNpregnant womenRhD variants

Identifiers

PMID37900088
PMCPMC10600664
OpenAlexW4388034584

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.