MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405603523 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001338

Prevention of Maternal Rh D Alloimmunization: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

2024· review· en· W4405603523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eirini Boureka, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Sonia Giouleka, Anastasios Liberis, Georgios Michos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMiscarriagePregnancyObstetrics and gynaecologyObstetricsGynecologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Rhesus alloimmunization refers to the sensitization of an Rh D-negative mother after exposure to D-positive fetal red blood cells, which can lead to significant fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Objective: The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published international guidelines on the prevention of maternal alloimmunization. Evidence Acquisition: A comparative review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the British Committee for Standards in Hematology, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada regarding the prevention of maternal Rh D alloimmunization was conducted. Results: There is consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the timing of antenatal antibody screening; the management of an already sensitized pregnancy; the administration and timing of postnatal prophylaxis with a D-positive neonate; and the need for prophylaxis after invasive procedures, abdominal trauma, and external cephalic version. Controversies exist regarding the management of women expressing weak D blood type and the optimal dose and regimen for routine antenatal prophylaxis, with recommendations suggesting administration between 28 and 34 weeks, versus specifically at 28 weeks. Moreover, significant discrepancies exist regarding the need for prophylaxis after some sensitizing events such as threatened, spontaneous, or surgical miscarriage; termination of pregnancy; and molar and ectopic pregnancy, as well as the optimal dose of anti-D globulin after invasive antenatal procedures, abdominal trauma, external cephalic version, and postnatal prophylaxis. Conclusions: Anti-D globulin remains an important tool for the prevention of maternal alloimmunization, thus contributing to a significant improvement in fetal and neonatal outcomes. However, due to lack of evidence, discrepancies exist between relevant guidelines. Hence, further studies and the development of consistent evidence-based protocols and algorithms are pivotal to safely guide through pregnancy and subsequently reduce fetal and neonatal morbidity, without subjecting women to unnecessary treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207