Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0230073. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230073

Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis

Xiaohui Xie 1,#, Qiurong Fu 2,#, Ziwei Bao 3,#, Yi Zhang 4,*, Dan Zhou 1,*
Editor: Frank T Spradley5
PMCID: PMC7067404  PMID: 32163467

Abstract

Background

Several anti-D immunoglobulin strategies exist for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This study systematically assessed the clinical value of those therapeutic strategies.

Methods

The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases were searched for eligible studies that evaluated the value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies in preventing maternal anti-D antibody sensitization. Combined odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 14.2 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 software.

Results

Twenty-four original studies involving 64860 patients were included. Among all therapeutic measures, injecting 300 μg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 5/E) appeared to be the most effective measure for preventing maternal antibody sensitization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.8%), while a single injection at 28 gestational weeks (SUCRA = 89.2%) was the second most effective. Administering no injection or a placebo (SUCRA = 0.0%) was the least effective intervention measure.

Conclusion

Among the therapeutic measures, antenatal 5/E appeared to be the best method for reducing the positive incidence of anti-D antibodies in the maternal serum; thus, it may be the most effective treatment for preventing fetal hemolytic disease.

Introduction

Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) can lead to fetal hemolytic anemia, jaundice, intellectual retardation, premature birth, abortion and stillbirth. HDFN is an important cause of neonatal morbidity and death [1–3]. To reduce the incidence of HDFN and mortality among fetuses and neonates, anti-D immunoglobulin has been tested in clinical trials in the United Kingdom and United States since the 1960s. Anti-D immunoglobulin has been used to prevent postpartum disease in RhD-negative women and has greatly reduced HDFN-related morbidity as well as fetal and neonatal mortality [4]. The anti-D antibody production rate in the maternal serum after immunization has also decreased significantly from 12–13% to approximately 1.2%. Prenatal prophylaxis with anti-D immunoglobulin in Rh-negative mothers can further reduce anti-D antibody production in maternal sera, which has further reduced the incidence of hemolytic diseases in fetuses and newborns since 1980 [5–11].

However, multiple countries recommend various anti-D immunoglobulin injection schemes, and no consensus has been reached on the use of anti-D immunoglobulin worldwide. Routine prenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) is recommended in some countries, while postpartum anti-D immunoglobulin injections are still used in other countries. Furthermore, the injection dose differs in some countries due to the lack of available immunoglobulin. Lee et al. suggested that administering low doses of anti-D immunoglobulin (50 μg) provided no benefit [12]. However, excessive doses may increase the risk of allergic reactions and infectious diseases.

Until now, no meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate the association between anti-D antibody production rates in the maternal serum and various therapeutic strategies regarding anti-D immunoglobulin. We conducted this study to systematically evaluate the preventive effects of anti-D immunoglobulin on HDFN via network meta-analysis based on all related published data.

Material and methods

Search strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to search the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases. The latest search was conducted on 7 July 2019. The following keywords were used in accordance with the search strategy: “RhD-negative” OR “D-negative” OR “Rh(D) Immuno-Globulin” OR “Anti-D Immunoglobulin” OR “Anti-D Antibody” OR “the hemolytic disease of the newborn” OR “haemolytic disease of the newborn” OR “HDFN” et al.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) randomized controlled studies on administering anti-D immunoglobulin injections to RhD-negative pregnant women; 2) Rh-positive fetuses in intrauterine pregnancies of Rh-negative pregnant women; 3) reported dose and frequency of anti-D immunoglobulin injections; and 4) reported positive incidence of anti-D antibody in postpartum mothers. Duplications, reviews, case reports, conference abstracts, and studies without useful data were excluded.

Study selection

Two authors (XXH and FQR) screened the abstracts and titles of eligible publications and judged whether to further review the full text independently. We contacted the trial author when full texts were unavailable. Full texts were independently reviewed by XXH and ZD. In the case of any disagreement during the selection process, the decisions were obtained after group discussion. Finally, we used flow chart to show the total number of retrieved references and the number of included and excluded studies.

Data extraction

Two investigators collected data independently in accordance with predesigned tables, which included the name of the first author, publication year, country, sample size, intervention measures, control measures, and anti-D antibody production rate in the maternal serum.

Two researchers independently assessed the quality of all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). This method comprised three parameters of quality: selection (score: 0–4), comparability (score: 0–2), and outcome assessment (score: 0–3), with total scores ranging from 0–9. NOS scores >6 were considered to indicate high-quality studies.

Statistical analysis

Stata statistical software, version 14.2 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 were applied to analyze the relationship between anti-D antibody production rates in the maternal serum and various anti-D immunoglobulin injection regimens. The random-effects model with vague priors for multiarm trials was used. The model parameters were estimated using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method of Gibbs sampling. The results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference(SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To evaluate the inconsistency between direct and indirect effect estimates for the same comparisons, we evaluated each closed loop in the network. In a closed loop, we employed the inconsistency factor (IF) to evaluate heterogeneity among the included studies. Node analysis showed that the direct and indirect comparisons of each node did not differ (P>0.05), and the consistency model was used for convergence. To rank the treatments, we used the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA). A comparison-adjusted funnel plot was used to assess the presence of small-study effect and publication bias.

Results

Characteristics of eligible studies

Fig 1 shows the literature retrieval procedure. After further discussing and considering the retrieved articles, 24 eligible articles[5,8,10–31] were ultimately identified, and 64860 patients were included in this network meta-analysis, with an average sample size of 2702.5 (range 54–12825). Among those studies, nine intervention-measure dosages for administering anti-D immunoglobulin were analyzed: 250 μg within 28 gestational weeks (antenatal 1/A), 300 μg within 28 gestational weeks (antenatal 2/B), 50 μg within 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 3/C), 100 μg between 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 4/D), 300 μg between 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 5/E), placebo or blank control group (blank/F),100 μg ≤ dosage < 200 μg within 72 h postpartum (postnatal 1/G), 200 μg ≤ dosage < 300 μg within 72 h postpartum (postnatal 2/H), and 300 μg ≤ dosage < 500 μg within 72 h postpartum (postnatal 3/I). All articles were written in good-quality English. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of all included cohort studies. Table 2 has the treatment abbreviations.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of included studies.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Main characteristics of all included studies.

First author Year Country Sample size I/C Intervention Control Multivariate analysis NOS
Ascari WQ 1968 America 1280 781/499 postnatal 3/I blank/F YES 7
Ascari WQ 1969 America 2876 1834/1042 postnatal 3/I blank/F YES 8
Bryant EC 1969 America 355 191/164 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 8
Jennings ER 1968 Canada  493 258/235 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 7
Pollack W 1968 America 1286 787/499 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 8
Robertson JG 1969 Scotland 212 100/112 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 7
Stenchever MA 1971 America 54 26/28 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 7
White CA 1970 America 5438 3784/1654 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 8
Dudok D 1968 Holland 662 333/329 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 9
Clake CA 1968 England 197 95/102 postnatal 3/I blank/F NO 9
Buchanan DI 1969 Canada 430 223/207 postnatal2/H postantal 1/G NO 9
Chown B 1969 Canada 2216 358/500;858/500 postnatal1/G; postantal3/I blank/F NO 8
John GC 1969 Canada 202 65/42;53/42 postnatal1/G; postantal3/I blank/F NO 9
Tovey LA 1983 England 9178 3875/5303 antenatal 4/D postantal 1/G NO 7
Huchet J 1987 France 1189 599/590 antenatal 4/D postantal 1/G YES 8
Bowam JM 1987 Canada 12836 9303/3533 antenatal 2/B postantal 3/I NO 6
Trolle B 1989 Denmark 700 354/346 antenatal 2/B postantal 2/H NO 8
Mayne S 1997 England 2851 1425/1426 antenatal 4/D postantal 3/I NO 9
Mackenzie IZ 1999 England 6466 3320/3146 antenatal 4/D postantal 3/I NO 9
Mackenzie IZ 2004 England 491 248/243 antenatal 2/B postantal 3/I NO 9
Lee D 1995 England 1180 648/532 antenatal 3/C blank/F YES 8
Bowam JM 1978 Canada 2361 2109/252 antenatal 5/E antenatal 2/B NO 7
Bowam JM 1978 Canada 2612 1598/1014 antenatal 2/B postantal 3/I NO 7
Hermann M 1984 Sweden 9295 4895/4400 antenatal 1/A postantal 2/H NO 7
Open in a new tab

Table 2. Treatment abbreviations.

Full name Abbreviations
Administered 250 μg within 28 gestational weeks antenatal 1/A
Administered 300 μg within 28 gestational weeks antenatal 2/B
Administered 50 μg within 28 and 34 gestational weeks antenatal 3/C
Administered 100 μg between 28 and 34 gestational weeks antenatal 4/D
Administered 300 μg between 28 and 34 gestational weeks antenatal 5/E
Placebo or blank control group blank/F
Administered 100 μg ≤ dosage < 200 μg within 72 h postpartum postnatal 1/G
Administered 200 μg ≤ dosage < 300 μg within 72 h postpartum postnatal 2/H
Administered 300 μg ≤ dosage < 500 μg within 72 h postpartum postnatal 3/I
Open in a new tab

Network meta-analysis results

Network relationship and inconsistency test. In this network meta-analysis, the association between various anti-D immunoglobulin strategies and their clinical value in HDFN was analyzed for 24 cohort studies comprising 64860 patients and nine treatment measures. Fig 2 shows the network relationship among the different treatment measures. Nodes are proportional to the number of patients included in the corresponding treatments, and edges are weighted according to the number of studies included in the respective comparisons. Nine treatment measures formed three triangles and two quadrilateral closed loops. The inconsistency factor was obtained under the inconsistency model using Gemetc software. Fig 3 shows the inconsistency plot used to identify heterogeneity among studies in the closed loop of this network meta-analysis. Three triangular loops and two quadratic loops are present in the network meta-analysis. The results showed that the inconsistency factor (IF) was 0.11 ≤ 2.13, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) contained 0, suggesting that statistical inconsistency may not exist among these five closed loops (Fig 3). Furthermore, node analysis was used to analyze the differences between direct and indirect comparisons among treatment measures (Table 3). P>0.05 indicates that no statistical inconsistencies were observed, suggesting that a network meta-analysis can be accomplished by directly or indirectly comparing different therapeutic measures. Thus, data on various treatment measures can be converged using consistency models.

Fig 2. Network relationship of the included treatment measures.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Fig 3. Inconsistency test.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Table 3. Node analysis.

Node analysis results
Side Direct Indirect Difference P>z
Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
A H 0.863 0.429 -1.012 42.161 1.874 42.163 0.965
B E -2.123 2.001 5.147 3110.084 -7.269 3110.085 0.998
B H 2.605 1.47 3.023 0.637 -0.417 1.602 0.794
B I 1.852 0.218 1.435 1.587 0.417 1.602 0.794
C F 1.899 0.239 6.653 203.357 -4.754 203.357 0.981
D G 1.441 0.314 1.876 0.905 -0.435 0.958 0.65
D I 0.989 0.297 0.555 0.911 0.435 0.958 0.65
F G -3.269 0.974 -2.678 0.465 -0.591 1.061 0.578
F H -1.791 0.631 -3.259 0.998 1.468 1.181 0.214
F I -3.377 0.237 -2.351 1.068 -1.026 1.102 0.352
G H -0.773 1.229 1.039 0.724 -1.812 1.426 0.204
G I -0.339 1.418 -0.556 0.401 0.218 1.473 0.882
Open in a new tab

Results of the Bayesian network meta-analysis. According to the network of comparisons (Table 4), the antenatal 5/E, antenatal 2/B, antenatal 4/D, antenatal 1/A, postnatal 3/I, postnatal 2/H, and antenatal 3/C regimens significantly reduced the serum anti-D antibody-positive rates compared with that of the blank/F regimen alone (antenatal 5/E vs. blank/F: OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00–0.04; antenatal 2/B vs. blank/F: OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.00–0.01; antenatal 4/D vs. blank/F: OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.01–0.03; antenatal 1/A vs. blank/F: OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01–0.18; postnatal 3/I vs. blank/F: OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02–0.06, P<0.05; postnatal 2/H vs. blank/F: OR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.04–0.31; antenatal 3/C vs. blank/F: OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.09–0.24; all P<0.05). This indicated that injections of anti-D immunoglobulin, whether before or after delivery, significantly reduced the incidence of maternal serum that was positive for anti-D antibody in Rh-negative mothers with Rh-positive fetuses. Moreover, antenatal 5/E, antenatal 2/B, antenatal 4/D, antenatal 1/A and postnatal 3/I were the most effective treatment measures for reducing the incidence of maternal anti-D antibody positivity (antenatal 5/E vs. antenatal 2/B: OR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.00–6.05; antenatal 2/B vs. antenatal 4/D: OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.20–0.82, P<0.05; antenatal 4/D vs. postnatal 3/I: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.22–0.67, P<0.05; postnatal 3/I vs. antenatal 1/A: OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.20–3.08, P>0.05). Similarly, we used a forest plot to represent the network meta-analysis results (Fig 4). All immunization schemes were significantly more effective than was the blank control scheme (P<0.05).

Table 4. Network meta-analysis result.

postnatal 3/I 3.04 1.72 (0.81,3.66) 27.71 (17.66,43.50) 0.02 (0.00,0.98) 0.39 (0.22,0.67) 4.15 0.16 (0.10,0.24) 1.28 (0.32,5.08)
(1.02,9.03) (2.17,7.94)
0.33 * (0.11,0.98) postnatal 2/H 0.56 (0.17,1.92) 9.11 (3.20,25.92) 0.01 (0.00,0.37) 0.13 (0.04,0.41) 1.36 0.05 (0.02,0.16) 0.42 (0.18,0.98)
(0.43,4.29)
0.58 (0.27,1.24) 1.77 postnatal 1/G 16.14 (7.00,37.22) 0.01 (0.00,0.61) 0.23 (0.13,0.40) 2.42 0.09 (0.04,0.22) 0.75 (0.17,3.30)
(0.52,6.02) (0.93,6.29)
0.04 * (0.02,0.06) 0.11* 0.06 * (0.03,0.14) Blank/F 0.00 (0.00,0.04) 0.01 (0.01,0.03) 0.15 0.01 (0.00,0.01) 0.05 (0.01,0.18)
(0.04,0.31) (0.09,0.24)
52.84 * (1.02,2730.18) 160.72 * (2.70,9562.99) 90.71 * (1.64,5031.73) 1464.44 * (27.65,77566.59) antenatal 5/E 20.48 (0.38,1099.57) 219.16 (4.03,11931.17) 8.35 (0.17,421.95) 67.86 (1.05,4398.56)
2.58 * (1.48,4.48) 7.85 * (2.44,25.26) 4.43 * (2.48,7.92) 71.49 * (35.95,142.18) 0.05 (0.00,2.62) antenatal 4/D 10.70 (4.66,24.57) 0.41 (0.20,0.82) 3.31 (0.78,13.98)
0.24 * (0.13,0.46) 0.73 0.41 (0.16,1.08) 6.68 *
(4.19,10.67)		 0.00 * (0.00,0.25) 0.09 * (0.04,0.21) antenatal 3/C 0.04 (0.02,0.08) 0.31 (0.07,1.28)
(0.23,2.31)
6.33 * (4.15,9.65) 19.24 * (6.12,60.49) 10.86 * (4.58,25.73) 175.29 * (94.99,323.46) 0.12 (0.00,6.05) 2.45 * (1.22,4.91) 26.23 * (12.14,56.70) antenatal 2/B 8.12 (1.96,33.64)
0.78 (0.20,3.08) 2.37* 1.34 (0.30,5.89) 21.58 * (5.64,82.53) 0.01 * (0.00,0.96) 0.30 (0.07,1.27) 3.23 0.12 (0.03,0.51) antenatal 1/A
(1.02,5.49) (0.78,13.37)
Open in a new tab

* indicates a significant difference in the data (P<0.05).

Fig 4. Forest plot of the network meta-analysis.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Rank probability. Injecting 300 μg of anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 5/E) was the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.8%; Fig 5), and administering 300 μg within 28 gestational weeks (antenatal 2/B) was the second most effective (SUCRA = 89.2%). Administering no injection or a placebo was the least effective (SUCRA = 0.0%).

Fig 5. SUCRA for preventing maternal antibody sensitization.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Assessment of publication bias and small-sample effect detection. Fig 6 shows the comparison-correction funnel plots of the included comparison. The funnel diagram is basically symmetric, and the regression line is less tilted; therefore, this study may have a small sample effect and slight publication bias.

Fig 6. Correction funnel plot.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

Discussion

In 2012, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Optimization (NICE) proposed that preventing maternal antibody sensitization via routine prenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) is a cost-effective method (http://www.nice.org.uk/). The British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) published the latest guidelines in 2014, recommending the use of anti-D immunoglobulin to prevent haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn [32]. These guidelines recommend that RAADP be performed in RhD-negative pregnant women in their third trimester of pregnancy. RAADP includes the following regimens: a single dose of 300 μg (1500 IU) anti-D immunoglobulin between 28 and 30 gestational weeks or a two-dose regimen of 100 μg (500 IU) anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 gestational weeks. A Kleihauer-Betke test should be performed after delivery to estimate whether fetomaternal hemorrhaging exceeded 4 ml, then another 100ug(500 IU) should be administered within 72 hours of delivery. In 2017, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)[33] recommends prophylactic anti-D immune globulin to unsensitized Rh D-negative women at 28 weeks of gestation. After birth, if the baby is Rh D positive, these mothers should receive anti-D immune globulin within 72 hours of birth.

However, an observational study noted that compliance with the single injection regimen was better than that with the two-injection regimen[34]. A single injection may also reduce costs. No evidence exists to assess the efficacy of these therapeutic strategies[32].

Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing multiple treatment measures. The results revealed that the antenatal 5/E, antenatal 2/B, antenatal 4/D, antenatal 1/A, postnatal 3/I, postnatal 2/H and antenatal 3/C regimens significantly reduced serum anti-D antibody positive rates compared with that of the blank/F regimen alone, indicating that anti-D immunoglobulin immunotherapy, whether administered before or after delivery, significantly reduced the incidence of maternal serum anti-D antibody positivity in Rh-negative mothers with Rh-positive fetuses. Moreover, antenatal 5, antenatal 2, antenatal 4, antenatal 1 and postnatal 3 were the most effective treatment measures for reducing the incidence of maternal anti-D antibody positivity. Therapeutic regimens antenatal 5 and antenatal 2 were likely the most effective regimens for preventing hemolytic diseases in fetuses and newborns.

The SUCRA for preventing maternal antibody sensitization indicated that the 300-μg anti-D immunoglobulin injection at 28 and 34 gestational weeks (antenatal 5/E) was likely the most effective regimen (SUCRA = 96.8%), and administering 300 μg within 28 gestational weeks (antenatal 2/B) was likely the second most effective (SUCRA = 89.2%). Administering no injection or a placebo was the least effective regimen (SUCRA = 0.0%). The anti-D immunoglobulin mechanism of action, which is closely related to the drug duration and dose, may explain these results. Anti-D immunoglobulin is extracted from the serum and used to prevent neonatal hemolysis.

RhD-positive red blood cells (containing the D antigen) from the fetus stimulate antibody production in RhD-negative mothers. During pregnancy and delivery of the first RhD-positive fetus to RhD-negative mothers, the red blood cells of the RhD-positive fetuses enter the RhD-negative mothers and stimulate the mothers to produce IgG anti-D antibodies. When an RhD-negative mother later carries an RhD-positive fetus, the antibodies in the maternal serum enter the fetal blood circulation via the placental barrier and can cause neonatal hemolysis.

However, during the pregnancy with the first RhD-positive fetus, or within 72 hours after delivery, RhD-negative mothers can be intramuscularly injected with 300 μg anti-D immunoglobulin, which can bind to the D antigen leaked into the mother's serum and desensitize it, thus blocking anti-D antibody production in the mother's serum. Anti-D immunoglobulin had no significant preventive effect on mothers who had already produced anti-D antibodies.

Twenty-five micrograms (125 IU) of anti-D immunoglobulin can typically protect against a fetal-maternal hemorrhage (FMH) of approximately 1–2 ml of blood. Therefore, 100 μg (500 IU) of anti-D antibody can prevent an FMH of approximately 8 ml, and 300 μg can prevent an FMH of approximately 30 ml. An FMH of greater than 30 ml is uncommon [35]. However, pharmacokinetic studies have shown that anti-RhD levels vary among patients, and some may have insufficient anti-RhD levels during childbirth [36]. A single injection of 300 μg anti-D immunoglobulin maintained a high immunopreventive effect for approximately 12 weeks. Bowman et al. [37]suggested that women who failed to give birth within 12 weeks after receiving the prenatal doses should receive a second dose of anti-D immunoglobulin to maintain the immunopreventive effect.

Routine prenatal prophylaxis with anti-D immunoglobulin is unlikely to benefit the current pregnancy or improve pregnancy outcomes, but it can reduce the anti-D antibody production during subsequent pregnancies. Chilcott et al.[38]noted that routine anti-D immunoglobulin injections should prevent future hemolytic diseases in infants. In many countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, the guidelines recommend routine universal prenatal anti-D immunoglobulin prevention (http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/ and http://www.rcog.org.uk/). The incidence of D-negative individuals varies among ethnic groups, with the highest being in Basques (30% -35%), followed by North American and European Caucasians (15%) [38]. In China, RhD-negative individuals constitute approximately 0.3% of the population [39]. Routine use of anti-D immunoglobulin is the main method of decreasing the erythrocyte alloimmunity ratio.

Conclusions

Several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis. First, the literature included in this study spanned a long time period, and the titer or quality of anti-D immunoglobulin varies over time, which may affect the outcome. Second, the recruited participants were all from western countries, and no studies could be found regarding Asians and anti-D immunoglobulin. This might limit the application of our conclusions, and research on other races should be conducted.

In conclusion, this study showed that the current first-line recommendation is two 300-μg prenatal immunizations at 28 and 34 gestational weeks. If the anti-D immunoglobulin supply is inadequate, the second alternative should be a single 300-μg prenatal immunization at 28 gestational weeks.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA NMA checklist of Items to include when reporting a systematic review involving a network meta-analysis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (160.3KB, docx)
S1 Table. The raw data of all included studies.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Mollison PL and Walker W. CONTROLLED TRIALS OF THE TREATMENT OF H?MOLYTIC DISEASE OF THE NEWBORN. The Lancet.1952;259(6705):429–433. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(52)91949-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Woodrow JC and Donohoe WT. Rh-immunization by pregnancy: results of a survey and their relevance to prophylactic therapy. Br Med J. 1968; 4(5624):139–144. PMCID: PMC1911951 10.1136/bmj.4.5624.139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bowman J. Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis. TRANSFUSION. 2003; 43(12):1661–1666. 10.1111/j.0041-1132.2003.00632.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tovey LA. Oliver memorial lecture. Towards the conquest of Rh haemolytic disease: Britain's contribution and the role of serendipity. Transfus Med. 1992; 2(2):99–109. 10.1111/j.1365-3148.1992.tb00142.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Huchet J, Dallemagne S, Huchet C, Brossard Y, Larsen M and Parnet-Mathieu F. Ante-partum administration of preventive treatment of Rh-D immunization in rhesus-negative women. Parallel evaluation of transplacental passage of fetal blood cells. Results of a multicenter study carried out in the Paris region]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1987; 16(1):101–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chilcott J, Lloyd JM, Wight J, Forman K, Wray J, Beverley C and Tappenden P. A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus-negative. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(4):62 10.3310/hta7040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Reali G. Forty years of anti-D immunoprophylaxis. Blood Transfus. 2007; 5(1):3–6. 10.2450/2007.0b18-06 PMCID: PMC2535875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mayne S, Parker JH, Harden TA, Dodds SD and Beale JA. Rate of RhD sensitisation before and after implementation of a community based antenatal prophylaxis programme. BMJ. 1997; 315(7122):1588 10.1136/bmj.315.7122.1588 PMCID: PMC2127978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Turner RM, Lloyd-Jones M, Anumba DO, Smith GC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Squires H, et al. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in women who are Rh(D) negative: meta-analyses adjusted for differences in study design and quality. PLOS ONE. 2012; 7(2):e30711 PMCID: PMC3272015 10.1371/journal.pone.0030711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.MacKenzie IZ, Bowell P, Gregory H, Pratt G, Guest C and Entwistle CC. Routine antenatal Rhesus D immunoglobulin prophylaxis: the results of a prospective 10 year study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999; 106(5):492–497. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08304.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tovey LA, Townley A, Stevenson BJ and Taverner J. The Yorkshire antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin trial in primigravidae. LANCET. 1983; 2(8344):244–246. 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)90232-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lee D and Rawlinson VI. Multicentre trial of antepartum low-dose anti-D immunoglobulin. Transfus Med. 1995; 5(1):15–19. 10.1111/j.1365-3148.1995.tb00180.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bryant EC, Hart GD, Cairns D, Gamarra JA, de Veber LL, Holland CG and Hutchison JL. Clinical evaluation of Rho(D) immune globulin (human) in Canada. CAN MED ASSOC J. 1969; 101(12):82–83. https://doi.org/ 10.1001/archinte.125.6.1073. PMCID: PMC1946435 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ascari WQ, Levine P and Pollack W. Incidence of maternal Rh immunization by ABO compatible and incompatible pregnancies. Br Med J. 1969; 1(5641):399–401. 10.1136/bmj.1.5641.399 PMCID: PMC1981891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jennings ER, Dibbern HH, Hodell FH, Monroe CH and Pollack W. Long Beach (California) Experience with Rh Immunoglobulin. TRANSFUSION. 1968; 8(3):146–148. 10.1111/j.1537-2995.1968.tb04892.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ascari WQ. Rho (D) Immune Globulin (Human). Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics. 1968; 205(1):1 https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.1968.03140270025004.4202567 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Robertson JG and Holmes CM. A clinical trial of anti-Rho(D) immunoglobulin in the prevention of Rho(D) immunization. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1969; 76(3):252–259. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1969.tb05829.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dudok DWC, Borst-Eilers E, Weerdt CM and Kloosterman GJ. Prevention of rhesus immunization. A controlled clinical trial with a comparatively low dose of anti-D immunoglobulin. Br Med J. 1968; 4(5629):477–479. 10.1136/bmj.4.5629.477 PMCID: PMC1912672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pollack W, Gorman JG, Freda VJ, Ascari WQ, Allen AE and Baker WJ. Results of clinical trials of RhoGAM in women. TRANSFUSION. 1968; 8(3):151–153. 10.1111/j.1537-2995.1968.tb04895.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.White CA, Visscher RD, Visscher HC and Wade ME. Rho (D) immune prophylaxis. A double-blind cooperative study. OBSTET GYNECOL. 1970; 36(3):341–346. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1970.tb00440.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stenchever MA, Davies IJ, Weisman R and Gross S. Rho(D) immune globulin: a double blind clinical trial. AM J OBSTET GYNECOL. 1970; 106(2):316–317. 10.1016/0002-9378(70)90286-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hermann M, Kjellman H and Ljunggren C. Antenatal prophylaxis of Rh immunization with 250 micrograms anti-D immunoglobulin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1984; 124:1–15. 10.3109/00016348409157011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chown B DAJJ. Prevention of primary Rh immunization: first report of the Western Canadian trial, 1966–1968.; 100:1021–4(1969):1021–1024. PMCID: PMC1946029 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.CLARKE and A. C. PROPHYLAXIS OF RHESUS ISO-IMMUNIZATION. BRIT MED BULL.; 24(1):3–9. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a070589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Godel JC, Buchanan DI, Jarosch JM and McHugh M. Significance of Rh-sensitization during pregnancy: its relation to a preventive programme. Br Med J. 1968; 4(5629):479–482. 10.1136/bmj.4.5629.479 PMCID: PMC1912706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Buchanan DI, Bell RE, Beck RP and Taylor WC. Use of different doses of anti-Rh IgG in the prevention of Rh isoimmunisation. LANCET. 1969; 2(7615):288–290. 10.1016/s0140-6736(69)90053-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bowman JM and Pollock JM. Failures of intravenous Rh immune globulin prophylaxis: an analysis of the reasons for such failures. TRANSFUS MED REV. 1987; 1(2):101–112. 10.1016/s0887-7963(87)70010-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Trolle B. Prenatal Rh-immune prophylaxis with 300 micrograms immune globulin anti-D in the 28th week of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989; 68(1):45–47. 10.3109/00016348909087688 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mackenzie IZ, Bichler J, Mason GC, Lunan CB, Stewart P, Al-Azzawi F, et al. Efficacy and safety of a new, chromatographically purified rhesus (D) immunoglobulin. J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.2004; 117(2):161 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bowman JM and Pollock JM. Antenatal prophylaxis of Rh isoimmunization: 28-weeks'-gestation service program. CAN MED ASSOC J. 1978; 118(6):627–630. 10.1097/00006254-197810000-00005 PMCID: PMC1818036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bowman JM, Chown B, Lewis M and Pollock JM. Rh isoimmunization during pregnancy: antenatal prophylaxis. CAN MED ASSOC J. 1978; 118(6):623–627. PMCID: PMC1818025 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Qureshi H, Massey E, Kirwan D, Davies T, Robson S, White J, et al. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med. 2014; 24(1):8–20. 10.1111/tme.12091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.M R. Practice Bulletin No. 181: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017; 130 https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-57675-6_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.MacKenzie IZ, Dutton S and Roseman F. Evidence to support the single-dose over the two-dose protocol for routine antenatal anti-D Rhesus prophylaxis: a prospective observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 158(1):42–46. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zipursky A. Rh hemolytic disease of the newborn—the disease eradicated by immunology. CLIN OBSTET GYNECOL. 1977; 20(3):759–772. 10.1097/00003081-197709000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tiblad E, Wikman A, Rane A, Jansson Y and Westgren M. Pharmacokinetics of 250 mug anti-D IgG in the third trimester of pregnancy: an observational study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012; 91(5):587–592. 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01377.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bowman JM. Controversies in Rh prophylaxis. Who needs Rh immune globulin and when should it be given? AM J OBSTET GYNECOL.1985;151(3):289–294. 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90288-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chilcott J, Lloyd JM, Wight J, Forman K, Wray J, Beverley C, et al. A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus-negative. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(4):62 10.3310/hta7040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zipursky A and Paul VK. The global burden of Rh disease. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011; 96(2):F84–F85. 10.1136/adc.2009.181172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank T Spradley

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-24055

Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. There were several major comments and concerns raised during the review of your manuscript. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses ALL of the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-check-your-manuscript-image-quality-in-editorial-manager/

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

4. . We note you have included two different tables in your manuscript labelled as Table 3; 'Table 3 Treatment abbreviations' and 'Table 3 Network meta-analysis result'. Please review these and ensure that you refer to all tables in the text of your manuscript so that they can be separately identified; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to each Table.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors investigated the various anti-d immunoglobulin strategies used for prevention of Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn using a network meta-analysis. Of the nine therapeutic measures studied, they found that giving 300 µg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 weeks of gestation was the most effective measure for preventing maternal antibody sensitization, followed by a single injection at 28 weeks of gestation. This is interesting work clearly written.

Reviewer’s comments;

1. Page 3 (Results, last sentence): Suggest adding - Table 2 has the treatment abbreviations.

2. Page 5 (Table 2): This table was incorrectly labeled as Table 3. Please correct.

3. Page 9 (Discussion, middle of first paragraph): Suggest adding 100 µg to the sentence that states that …then another 500 IU should be administered…

4. Page 9 (Discussion, first paragraph): ACOG is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Please correct.

5. Page 9 (Discussion, first paragraph): The sentence …(ACOG) recommended a single injection of 300 µg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 weeks of pregnancy with an RhD–positive baby, then another injection of 300 µg again after birth… should be corrected as it is confusing as written. ACOG recommends prophylactic anti-D immune globulin to unsensitized Rh D-negative women at 28 weeks of gestation. After birth, if the baby is Rh D positive, these mothers should receive anti-D immune globulin within 72 hours of birth.

6. Page 10 (Discussion, top paragraph, first line): The area in parenthesis after …anti-D antibody positive rates compared with that of the blank/F regimen alone… can be deleted as it already appears in the Results section.

7. Page 10 (Discussion, top paragraph, line 10): Similarly as in #6 above, the area in parenthesis after …incidence of maternal anti-D positivity…can be deleted.

8. Page 11 (Discussion, next to last paragraph, last four lines): Please clarify what you mean by …but few studies have focused on the first fetus born to RhD-negative mothers. Supply references of the few studies. Also, please reference the last sentence …Some studies have also found that using anti-D immunoglobulin may cause hemolysis in fetuses during pregnancy.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0230073. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230073.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

1 Feb 2020

Dear reviewers:

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The authors’ answer: the manuscript has been revised as PLOS ONE's style requirements

2. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-check-your-manuscript-image-quality-in-editorial-manager/

The authors’ answer: The new Figure 2 has been repalced.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

The authors’ answer: The tables has been inclued in the manuscript.There is no supplementary tables.

4. We note you have included two different tables in your manuscript labelled as Table 3; 'Table 3 Treatment abbreviations' and 'Table 3 Network meta-analysis result'. Please review these and ensure that you refer to all tables in the text of your manuscript so that they can be separately identified; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to each Table.

The authors’ answer: Table label has been modified .Table 3 Treatment abbreviations has been replaced by Table 2 Treatment abbreviations.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors investigated the various anti-d immunoglobulin strategies used for prevention of Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn using a network meta-analysis. Of the nine therapeutic measures studied, they found that giving 300 µg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 and 34 weeks of gestation was the most effective measure for preventing maternal antibody sensitization, followed by a single injection at 28 weeks of gestation. This is interesting work clearly written.

Reviewer’s comments;

1. Page 3 (Results, last sentence): Suggest adding - Table 2 has the treatment abbreviations.

The authors’ answer: The sentence has been added.

2. Page 5 (Table 2): This table was incorrectly labeled as Table 3. Please correct.

The authors’ answer: The Table label has been corrected.

3. Page 9 (Discussion, middle of first paragraph): Suggest adding 100 µg to the sentence that states that …then another 500 IU should be administered…

The authors’ answer: The “100 µg” has been added in the sentence.

4. Page 9 (Discussion, first paragraph): ACOG is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Please correct.

The authors’ answer: “American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” has been replaced by “American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists”.

5. Page 9 (Discussion, first paragraph): The sentence …(ACOG) recommended a single injection of 300 µg anti-D immunoglobulin at 28 weeks of pregnancy with an RhD–positive baby, then another injection of 300 µg again after birth… should be corrected as it is confusing as written. ACOG recommends prophylactic anti-D immune globulin to unsensitized Rh D-negative women at 28 weeks of gestation. After birth, if the baby is Rh D positive, these mothers should receive anti-D immune globulin within 72 hours of birth.

The authors’ answer: The confusing sentence has been revised.

6. Page 10 (Discussion, top paragraph, first line): The area in parenthesis after …anti-D antibody positive rates compared with that of the blank/F regimen alone… can be deleted as it already appears in the Results section.

The authors’ answer: The area in parenthesis has been deleted.

7. Page 10 (Discussion, top paragraph, line 10): Similarly as in #6 above, the area in parenthesis after …incidence of maternal anti-D positivity…can be deleted.

The authors’ answer: The area in parenthesis has been deleted.

8. Page 11 (Discussion, next to last paragraph, last four lines): Please clarify what you mean by …but few studies have focused on the first fetus born to RhD-negative mothers. Supply references of the few studies. Also, please reference the last sentence …Some studies have also found that using anti-D immunoglobulin may cause hemolysis in fetuses during pregnancy.

The authors’ answer: Confused sentences have been deleted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Xiaohui Xie1;Yi Zhang2

1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology，the First People's Hospital of Neijiang,Neijiang 641000,Sichuan Province, P. R. China2．Department of General Surgery，the First People's Hospital of Neijiang,Neijiang 641000,Sichuan Province, P. R. China

January 30, 2020

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file. (35.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Frank T Spradley

13 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-24055R1

Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. There are two additional comments from the reviewer that must be addressed. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The investigators have addressed previous comments and have made changes to the manuscript. However, I have two additional comments:

1. Results of the Bayesian network meta-analysis (lines 6-7): Based on Table 4, the results for postnatal 3/I vs blank/F should be OR=0.04, 95% CI=0.02-0.06. Please clarify.

2. Figure 5: The labeling of the various curves should be reevaluated. For example, antenatal 5/E had a SUCRA of 96.8%, however the Figure has antenatal 1 with that SUCRA. Antenatal 2/B had a SUCRA of 89.2%, however the Figure has antenatal 3 with that SUCRA.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0230073. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230073.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

18 Feb 2020

Reviewer #1: The investigators have addressed previous comments and have made changes to the manuscript. However, I have two additional comments:

1. Results of the Bayesian network meta-analysis (lines 6-7): Based on Table 4, the results for postnatal 3/I vs blank/F should be OR=0.04, 95% CI=0.02-0.06. Please clarify.

Answer: the results for postnatal 3/I vs blank/F has been revised.

2. Figure 5: The labeling of the various curves should be reevaluated. For example, antenatal 5/E had a SUCRA of 96.8%, however the Figure has antenatal 1 with that SUCRA. Antenatal 2/B had a SUCRA of 89.2%, however the Figure has antenatal 3 with that SUCRA.

Answer:The labeling of the various curves has been reevaluated.The Figure 5 has been replaced.

Supporting Information files and PRISMA checklist are uploaded.please check

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file. (25.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 2

Frank T Spradley

21 Feb 2020

Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis

PONE-D-19-24055R2

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Frank T Spradley

26 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-24055R2

Clinical value of different anti-D immunoglobulin strategies for preventing Rh hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: A network meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA NMA checklist of Items to include when reporting a systematic review involving a network meta-analysis.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (160.3KB, docx)
    S1 Table. The raw data of all included studies.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Click here for additional data file. (35.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Click here for additional data file. (25.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES