↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anti‐D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
368 Mendeley
Title
Anti‐D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000020.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary D McBain, Caroline A Crowther, Philippa Middleton

Abstract

During pregnancy, a Rhesus negative (Rh-negative) woman may develop antibodies when her fetus is Rhesus positive (Rh-positive). These antibodies may harm Rh-positive babies. To assess the effects of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin on the incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation when given to Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials in Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies given anti-D after 28 weeks of pregnancy, compared with no treatment, placebo or a different regimen of anti-D. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We included two trials involving over 4500 women, comparing anti-D prophylaxis with no anti-D during pregnancy in this review. Overall, the trials were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for pre-specified outcomes was also assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.In regards to primary review outcomes, there did not appear to be a clear difference in the risks of immunisation when women who received anti-D at 28 and 34 weeks' gestation were compared with women who were not given antenatal anti-D: risk ratio (RR) for incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during pregnancy was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 3902 women; GRADE: low quality evidence); at birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 2297 women); and within 12 months after birth of a Rh-positive infant the average RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.62, two trials, 2048 women; Tau²: 0.47; I²: 39%; GRADE: low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation in subsequent pregnancies.Considering secondary outcomes, in one trial, women receiving anti-D during pregnancy were shown to be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test (which detects fetal cells in maternal blood) in pregnancy (at 32 to 25 weeks) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1884 women; GRADE: low quality evidence) and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79; 1189 women; GRADE: low quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for neonatal jaundice (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.30; 1882 infants; GRADE: very low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on adverse effects associated with anti-D treatment. Existing studies do not provide conclusive evidence that the use of anti-D during pregnancy benefits either mother or baby in terms of incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during the pregnancy or postpartum, or the incidence of neonatal morbidity (jaundice) (low to very low quality evidence). However women receiving anti-D may be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test in pregnancy and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (low quality evidence). Fewer women who receive anti-D during pregnancy may have Rhesus D antibodies in a subsequent pregnancy, with benefits for the baby, however this needs to be tested in studies of robust design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 368 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 365 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 76 21%
Other 30 8%
Student > Master 28 8%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Researcher 19 5%
Other 72 20%
Unknown 116 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 2%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 125 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,145,743
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,429
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,496
of 277,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.