ArticleEJHaem2025
Prophylactic versus on-demand transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sickle Cell Vaso-Occlusive Crisis Leading to Uteroplacental Malperfusion: A Case Report.AJP reports · 2026Article
- Echocardiographic and platelet markers of cardiovascular strain in sickle cell disease with superimposed preeclampsia: a perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Proactive management to improve outcomes of high-risk pregnancy in people with sickle cell disease.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sickle cell disease (SCD) poses significant risks during pregnancy. Transfusions are the only recommended treatment, but there is no strong evidence of its efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate prophylactic transfusion on pregnancy outcomes. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO-CRD42024510511), using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Maternity and Infant Care. No date or language restrictions were applied. Inclusion criteria comprised randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) involving SCD pregnancy, comparing maternal and foetal outcomes for prophylactic versus on-demand transfusions. Two independent reviewers performed screening, selection, and data extraction, following PRISMA. Two authors independently assessed certainty and risk-of-bias. Data were pooled using random-effects model. Primary outcomes included mortality, vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC), acute chest syndrome, venous thromboembolism and preterm delivery. The measure of the effect was the unadjusted odds ratio (OR), calculated from numbers of events. Results: Ninety-one studies were identified and two RCTs (106 patients) were included, with uncertain and low risk of bias. Prophylactic transfusions reduced VOC, OR of 0.197 (95% CI 0.08-0.49). However, due to the small number of patients, this meta-analysis was underpowered to evaluate other outcomes. Conclusion: A larger RCT is needed to comprehensively assess the impact of prophylactic transfusion in SCD 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.