A systematic review of red blood cell alloimmunization in pregnant women in Africa: time to do better
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives The presence of red blood cell ( RBC ) alloantibodies in pregnant women has been linked to the significant perinatal morbidity and mortality. A limited number of African studies have assessed alloimmunization to RBC antigens in pregnant women, but this literature has not been systematically reviewed. Thus, the aim of this study was to synthetize, by systematic review, the current evidence on RBC alloantibodies among pregnant women in Africa. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE , EMBASE and the Africa‐Wide Information database to identify relevant studies in any language. Case reports, comments, letters, conference abstracts, editorials and review articles were excluded. Results Of 269 potentially relevant articles, 12 studies representing 93 871 pregnant women fulfilled our selection criteria. Overall proportions of RBC alloimmunization exhibited a wide variation ranging from 1·1 (95% CI : 1·0, 1·2) to 12·1 (95% CI : 9·8, 14·7) per 100 pregnant women. Among clinically relevant antibodies, anti‐D ranked as the most common, followed by anti‐K and anti‐E. Conclusion The review of the available literature characterized the clinical challenge of RBC alloimmunization among pregnant women in Africa and revealed the insufficient volume and quality of research conducted in this topic. Improvement of quality of research should be a priority to gather stronger evidence that should drive policy decisions and strengthen practice in favour of RBC alloantibody screening in pregnant women as a standard of care throughout Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".