ArticleCureus2026
First-Trimester Screening Using a Fetomaternal Calculator Versus Maternal History-Based Screening for the Prevention of Preeclampsia.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreeclampsia (PE) is a major contributor to maternal and perinatal morbidity in India. While traditional history-based screening is standard, it often lacks sensitivity. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) calculator-based screening, utilizing a multi-parametric approach without biochemical markers, against traditional maternal history-based screening in a North Indian population.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital (September 2022 to May 2023). Four hundred women at 11 to 13
resultsThe incidence of preterm PE was significantly lower in Group A (9, 4.9%), compared to Group B (23, 12.4%) (p = 0.011). The total PE incidence was 14 (7.6%) in Group A and 34 (18.3%) in Group B (p = 0.002). Among women initially classified as low risk, 24 (16.0%) in the history-based group developed PE compared with six (4.3%) in the calculator group (p = 0.001). Group A also showed a significant reduction in NICU admissions, i.e., 14 (7.6%) versus 28 (15.1%) in Group B (p = 0.025).
conclusionFirst-trimester screening using the FMF calculator without biochemical markers is significantly more effective than history-based checklists. This protocol facilitates a viable, resource-based screening strategy for low- and middle-income countries.
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.