2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00243.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of the clinical effectiveness of routine antenatal anti‐D prophylaxis for rhesus‐negative women who are pregnant

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
17
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…33 A recent systematic review of studies evaluating a variety of dosing schemes further established the efficacy of routine antenatal RhIG prophylaxis when given in addition to postnatal dosing, with sensitization rates as high as 2.2% in the control groups and as low as zero among treated women. 34 The authors of this review concluded that the women most likely to benefit from RhIG administration are those with Rh-incompatible fetuses, those who are at risk for sensitization, and those who desire to have additional children. A summary of additional studies of antenatal prophylaxis with RhIG is included in Table 2.…”
Section: Clinical Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33 A recent systematic review of studies evaluating a variety of dosing schemes further established the efficacy of routine antenatal RhIG prophylaxis when given in addition to postnatal dosing, with sensitization rates as high as 2.2% in the control groups and as low as zero among treated women. 34 The authors of this review concluded that the women most likely to benefit from RhIG administration are those with Rh-incompatible fetuses, those who are at risk for sensitization, and those who desire to have additional children. A summary of additional studies of antenatal prophylaxis with RhIG is included in Table 2.…”
Section: Clinical Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Il leur aura sans doute échappé que l'étude ayant le plus de poids et la plus souvent citée dans toute la littérature internationale est celle réalisée en France par Huchet et al [2] du Centre d'hémobiologie périnatale (actuel CNRHP). Elle est reprise par les méta-analyses qui ont conduit de nombreux pays d'Europe et d'Amérique du Nord à adopter la prévention systématique, plusieurs années avant nous [3,4]. L'accusation de précipitation est, de ce point de vue, peu appropriée puisque les données en faveur de la préven-tion systématique datent essentiellement des années 1980-1990.…”
Section: Les Recommandations Sont Argumentées Et Validesunclassified
“…A further decrease was observed in several studies investigating routine antenatal administration of anti-D Ig, primarily to prevent immunisation from undetected FMHs during the last trimester of pregnancy. [10][11][12] But, even if postnatal and antenatal prophylaxis are combined, 0.1-0.3% of women at risk still develop RhD antibodies, 13,14 contributing to a significant number of new RhD immunisations and cases of HDFN. For example, 18 of the 34 new RhD immunisations in parae-1 in 2004 in the Netherlands occurred despite adequate prophylaxis in the previous pregnancy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%