ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Results of a Five-Year Experience in First Trimester Preeclampsia Screening.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pravastatin in preeclampsia: A meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Predictive Performance of Machine Learning-Based Methods for the Prediction of Preeclampsia-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe study aimed to evaluate the ability defining the risk of developing preeclampsia by a screening test carried out in the first trimester (between 11 + 0 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestational age), in order to identify high-risk women requiring more intensive health surveillance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the ability of this test to predict the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, intrauterine fetal death, gestational hypertension, HELLP syndrome, placental abruption, and preterm birth. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a single-center study, conducted at the Operative Unit of Obstetrics of the State Hospital of the Republic of San Marino. Medical history was collected at the time of enrolment in writing. Subsequently, obstetric outcomes were collected for each enrolled woman, through the analysis of medical records.
resultsFrom October 2014 to May 2019, 589 pregnant women were recruited, of whom, 474 (80.5%) were included in the "low-risk" group, and 115 (19.5%) in the "high-risk" group. At the time of analysis of this population, the obstetric outcomes were available for 498 women (84.5%), while 91 cases (15.5%) were current pregnancies. The PI of the uterine arteries was not significantly different between the two study groups. Otherwise, a significant difference was highlighted for MAP, which is higher in the case of pregnancies at high risk based on the risk factors only, and for PAPP-A, higher in the case of low-risk pregnancies. Regarding the percentage of fetal DNA, according to the most recent literature data, in our series, we report a statistically significant difference of the average between the low and high-risk groups.
conclusionsIn our study, we demonstrate that the multiparametric screening test for early PE performed well in identifying women at high risk of early PE, which certainly has the most severe maternal-fetal outcomes. The data reported that ASA intake at low doses is significantly higher in the population with high-risk tests for both early PE and late PE suggest once again that anamnestic evaluation plays an essential role in women's screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.