ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026
Evaluating Reproductive Health Recommendations in CPGs for Sickle Cell Disease: An Umbrella Review.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Individuals with sickle cell disease or trait (SCD/T) face significant reproductive health risks, highlighting the need to assess the best available evidence on their reproductive health needs. Objectives: To assess the quality of SCD/T clinical practice guidelines and evaluate the key characteristics and quality of their reproductive health recommendations. Methods: This systematic review followed the JBI methodology for Umbrella Reviews. Eligible CPGs required RHRs for individuals with SCD/T. Databases included PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and registries, for CPGs in March 2025 without language restriction. Screening followed a three-step process with two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using AGREE-II and AGREE-Rex. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers using a tool developed by the researchers. Conflicts between independent reviewers were resolved through discussion. Findings were synthesized using descriptive analyses, frequency tables, and narrative summaries. One deviation from the protocol is documented in the final review. Results: Fifteen CPGs published between 2020 and 2025 were included, most of which were national-level and peer-reviewed. AGREE II scores ranged from 48% to 97%, with Applicability scoring lowest and six CPGs recommended for use without modification. Across the guidelines, 198 reproductive health recommendations were identified. Most recommendations focused on antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (64.7%) and management-related care stages (62.1%). Safe abortion care appeared in only one guideline. Although nine CPGs used GRADE, many did not clearly report recommendation strength or evidence certainty. AGREE-REX identified seven CPGs as suitable for use without modification, with Values and Preferences scoring lowest. Inter-rater reliability was high for both tools. Conclusions: These findings highlight the need for more comprehensive, evidence-based, and patient-centered guidelines and recommendations to support high-quality reproductive healthcare for individuals with SCD. Umbrella Review Registration Number: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42025648554.
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.