Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025

Intranasal Immunization and Milk Collection in Studies of Maternal Immunization in New Zealand White Rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus
Published on: July 31, 2021
Antenatal and postpartum prevention of Rh alloimmunization: A systematic review and GRADE analysis
Candyce Hamel1, Leila Esmaeilisaraji1, Micere Thuku1
1Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
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); I2 = 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.
Related Concept Videos
Rh Blood Group
Development of Immunocompetence
The initial cells that migrate from the fetal thymus settle within the skin and epithelial tissues lining the mouth, digestive tract, and in females, the uterus and vagina. These cells, including skin-based dendritic cells, serve as antigen-presenting cells, playing a key role in T cell activation.
Subsequent T...
Rheumatic Heart Disease III: Medical Management
Blood Transfusion and Agglutination
History
The history of blood transfusion dates back to the 17th century, when early attempts were made in animals. In 1818 James Blundell, a British doctor, performed the first successful human blood transfusion. Later in 1900, Karl...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Blood Typing
Antigens are protein molecules that reside on the surface of red blood cells (RBCs). The ABO and Rh blood typing systems target...

