Anti-D prophylaxis for rhesus D (RhD)-negative women having an abortion of a pregnancy up to 13

abortion

Journal

BMJ sexual & reproductive health
ISSN: 2515-2009
Titre abrégé: BMJ Sex Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101715577

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 18 11 2019
revised: 17 12 2019
accepted: 25 12 2019
entrez: 22 1 2020
pubmed: 22 1 2020
medline: 22 1 2020
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In order to develop the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) national guideline on abortion care for the National Health Service1 we undertook a systematic review comparing anti-D prophylaxis to no prophylaxis in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women undergoing medical or surgical abortion of pregnancy at ≤13 The search identified 426 potentially relevant studies of which none met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for practice were therefore based on the clinical expertise of the guideline committee. (1) Offer anti-D prophylaxis to women who are Rhesus D negative who are having an abortion after 10

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In order to develop the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) national guideline on abortion care for the National Health Service1 we undertook a systematic review comparing anti-D prophylaxis to no prophylaxis in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women undergoing medical or surgical abortion of pregnancy at ≤13
RESULTS RESULTS
The search identified 426 potentially relevant studies of which none met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for practice were therefore based on the clinical expertise of the guideline committee.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
(1) Offer anti-D prophylaxis to women who are Rhesus D negative who are having an abortion after 10

Identifiants

pubmed: 31959599
pii: bmjsrh-2019-200536
doi: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200536
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Mia Schmidt-Hansen (M)

National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK MSchmidt-Hansen@rcog.org.uk.

Jonathan Lord (J)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK.

James Hawkins (J)

National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK.

Sharon Cameron (S)

Sexual and Reproductive Health Services, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.

Anuja Pandey (A)

National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK.

Elise Hasler (E)

National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK.

Fiona Regan (F)

Department of Haematology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Blood & Transplant, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH