Cargando…
Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings. METHODS: A scoping review framework was used to structure the process....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25491600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1 |
_version_ | 1782348867476389888 |
---|---|
author | Fyfe, Trina M Ritchey, M Jane Taruc, Christorina Crompton, Daniel Galliford, Brian Perrin, Rose |
author_facet | Fyfe, Trina M Ritchey, M Jane Taruc, Christorina Crompton, Daniel Galliford, Brian Perrin, Rose |
author_sort | Fyfe, Trina M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings. METHODS: A scoping review framework was used to structure the process. The following databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), and Web of Science (ISI). In addition, hand searching of article references was conducted. The search yielded 301 articles. Thirty-five articles remained for review after screening. Two team members reviewed each article using a detailed data collection sheet. A third reviewer was utilized if discrepancies occurred amongst reviewers. RESULTS: The review process yielded 18 included articles. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. Of the 18 studies, 15 were retrospective studies. The articles were largely conducted in one institution. The articles with a focus on routine antenatal provision of anti-D immunoglobulin found that it was given 80 to 90% of the time. Postpartum provision of anti-D immunoglobulin had significantly higher results of 95-100%. The review found that the delivery of anti-D immunoglobulin to RhD negative pregnant women during situations of potential sensitizing events was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: The included articles examine the management of RhD negative pregnancies in various countries with existing national guidelines. The existing evidence indicates an opportunity for quality improvement in situations where potential sensitizing events are not at routine times in pregnancy, such as miscarriage or fetal demise early in pregnancy. Routine care for the prevention of RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy and postpartum appears to be fairly consistent. The paucity of recent literature in this area leads to a recommendation for further research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4265333 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42653332014-12-14 Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review Fyfe, Trina M Ritchey, M Jane Taruc, Christorina Crompton, Daniel Galliford, Brian Perrin, Rose BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings. METHODS: A scoping review framework was used to structure the process. The following databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), and Web of Science (ISI). In addition, hand searching of article references was conducted. The search yielded 301 articles. Thirty-five articles remained for review after screening. Two team members reviewed each article using a detailed data collection sheet. A third reviewer was utilized if discrepancies occurred amongst reviewers. RESULTS: The review process yielded 18 included articles. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. Of the 18 studies, 15 were retrospective studies. The articles were largely conducted in one institution. The articles with a focus on routine antenatal provision of anti-D immunoglobulin found that it was given 80 to 90% of the time. Postpartum provision of anti-D immunoglobulin had significantly higher results of 95-100%. The review found that the delivery of anti-D immunoglobulin to RhD negative pregnant women during situations of potential sensitizing events was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: The included articles examine the management of RhD negative pregnancies in various countries with existing national guidelines. The existing evidence indicates an opportunity for quality improvement in situations where potential sensitizing events are not at routine times in pregnancy, such as miscarriage or fetal demise early in pregnancy. Routine care for the prevention of RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy and postpartum appears to be fairly consistent. The paucity of recent literature in this area leads to a recommendation for further research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4265333/ /pubmed/25491600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1 Text en © Fyfe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fyfe, Trina M Ritchey, M Jane Taruc, Christorina Crompton, Daniel Galliford, Brian Perrin, Rose Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title | Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title_full | Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title_short | Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
title_sort | appropriate provision of anti-d prophylaxis to rhd negative pregnant women: a scoping review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25491600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fyfetrinam appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview AT ritcheymjane appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview AT tarucchristorina appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview AT cromptondaniel appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview AT gallifordbrian appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview AT perrinrose appropriateprovisionofantidprophylaxistorhdnegativepregnantwomenascopingreview |