ArticleContraception2024
Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation.
Article in Contraception, 2024. 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.
- Maternal Isoimmunization-Associated Fetal Anemia After First-Trimester Abortion: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Current reproductive endocrinology and infertility practices regarding Rh-immune globulin administration in early pregnancy.F&S reports · 2026Article
- A tale of two societies: implications of conflicting Rh-immunoglobulin guidelines.AJOG global reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo perform cost analyses of foregoing RhD blood type testing and administration of Rh immunoglobulin (RhIg) for bleeding in pregnancy at <12 weeks gestation in the United States. STUDY
designWe created a decision-analytic model comparing the current standard treatment pathway for patients who have threatened, spontaneous, or induced abortion in the United States, with a new pathway foregoing RhD testing and administration of RhIg for those who are RhD-negative at <12 weeks gestation, assuming that the risk of sensitization is 0%. We derived population and cost estimates from the current literature and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to screen to avoid one case of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. We performed sensitivity analyses assuming Rh-sensitization risks of 1.5% and 3% and varying the subsequent pregnancy rates from 44% to 100%.
resultsThe annual savings to health care payers in the United States of foregoing RhD testing and RhIg administration with bleeding events at <12 weeks are $5.5 million/100,000 total pregnancies, assuming the sensitization risk is 0%. In sensitivity analyses with a sensitization risk of 1.5% and subsequent pregnancy rate of 84.3% foregoing Rh testing and RhIg administration would save $2.8 million/100,000 pregnancies, with a NNT of 7322 and a number needed to screen of 48,816. At a 3% sensitization rate, the current standard treatment pathway is most economical.
conclusionsThere is an opportunity to save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies by withholding RhIg in specific situations and conserving it for use later in pregnancy. IMPLICATIONS: Cost analyses support foregoing RhD blood type screening and RhIg administration at <12 weeks gestation if the sensitization rate is <3%. By deimplementing this low-value care, payers in the United States can save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies and conserve RhIg for use later in 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.