Cargando…

Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis

BACKGROUND: Existing systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamel, Candyce, Esmaeilisaraji, Leila, Thuku, Micere, Michaud, Alan, Sikora, Lindsey, Fung-Kee-Fung, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32913362
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238844
_version_ 1783580880168550400
author Hamel, Candyce
Esmaeilisaraji, Leila
Thuku, Micere
Michaud, Alan
Sikora, Lindsey
Fung-Kee-Fung, Karen
author_facet Hamel, Candyce
Esmaeilisaraji, Leila
Thuku, Micere
Michaud, Alan
Sikora, Lindsey
Fung-Kee-Fung, Karen
author_sort Hamel, Candyce
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Existing systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new trials, any comparative observational studies, and assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to November 26, 2019. Relevant websites and bibliographies of systematic reviews and guidelines were searched for studies published before 2000. Outcomes of interest were sensitization and adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was performed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized trials and eight comparative cohort studies were identified, evaluating 12 comparisons. Although there is some evidence of beneficial treatment effects (e.g., at 6-months postpartum, fewer women who received RhIg at delivery compared to no RhIg became sensitized [70 fewer sensitized women per 1,000 (95%CI: 67 to 71 fewer); I(2) = 73%]), due to very low certainty of the evidence, the magnitude of the treatment effect may be overestimated. The certainty of the evidence was very low for most outcomes often due to high risk of bias (e.g., randomization method, allocation concealment, selective reporting) and imprecision (i.e., few events and small sample sizes). There is limited evidence on prophylaxis for invasive fetal procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) in the comparative literature, and few studies reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of the evidence is found in existing RCTs and comparative observational studies addressing optimal effectiveness of Rh immunoprophylaxis. Guideline development committees should exercise caution when assessing the strength of the recommendations that inform and influence clinical practice in this area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7482964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74829642020-09-21 Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis Hamel, Candyce Esmaeilisaraji, Leila Thuku, Micere Michaud, Alan Sikora, Lindsey Fung-Kee-Fung, Karen PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Existing systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new trials, any comparative observational studies, and assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to November 26, 2019. Relevant websites and bibliographies of systematic reviews and guidelines were searched for studies published before 2000. Outcomes of interest were sensitization and adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was performed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized trials and eight comparative cohort studies were identified, evaluating 12 comparisons. Although there is some evidence of beneficial treatment effects (e.g., at 6-months postpartum, fewer women who received RhIg at delivery compared to no RhIg became sensitized [70 fewer sensitized women per 1,000 (95%CI: 67 to 71 fewer); I(2) = 73%]), due to very low certainty of the evidence, the magnitude of the treatment effect may be overestimated. The certainty of the evidence was very low for most outcomes often due to high risk of bias (e.g., randomization method, allocation concealment, selective reporting) and imprecision (i.e., few events and small sample sizes). There is limited evidence on prophylaxis for invasive fetal procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) in the comparative literature, and few studies reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of the evidence is found in existing RCTs and comparative observational studies addressing optimal effectiveness of Rh immunoprophylaxis. Guideline development committees should exercise caution when assessing the strength of the recommendations that inform and influence clinical practice in this area. Public Library of Science 2020-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7482964/ /pubmed/32913362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238844 Text en © 2020 Hamel et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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 author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hamel, Candyce
Esmaeilisaraji, Leila
Thuku, Micere
Michaud, Alan
Sikora, Lindsey
Fung-Kee-Fung, Karen
Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title_full Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title_fullStr Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title_full_unstemmed Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title_short Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
title_sort antenatal and postpartum prevention of rh alloimmunization: a systematic review and grade analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32913362
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238844
work_keys_str_mv AT hamelcandyce antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis
AT esmaeilisarajileila antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis
AT thukumicere antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis
AT michaudalan antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis
AT sikoralindsey antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis
AT fungkeefungkaren antenatalandpostpartumpreventionofrhalloimmunizationasystematicreviewandgradeanalysis