ArticleDisease markers2015
Validation of serum biomarkers derived from proteomic analysis for the early screening of preeclampsia.
Article in Disease markers, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Hemodynamic Insights into Preeclampsia: Comparing Ophthalmic and Uterine Artery Resistive Indices.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Measurement of the total angiotensinogen and its reduced and oxidised forms in human plasma using targeted LC-MS/MS.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2019Article
- Value of urinary KIM-1 and NGAL combined with serum Cys C for predicting acute kidney injury secondary to decompensated cirrhosis.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Placenta-derived exosomes: potential biomarkers of preeclampsia.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Review
- Nested case-control study reveals increased levels of urinary proteins from human kidney toxicity panels in women predicted to develop preeclampsia.International urology and nephrology · 2016Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the potential value of previously identified biomarkers using proteomics in early screening for preeclampsia (PE).
methods24 blood samples from women who subsequently developed PE and 48 from uncomplicated pregnancies were obtained at 11-13 weeks and analysed after delivery. Cystatin-C, sVCAM-1, and Pappalysin-1 were quantified by ELISA. Maternal characteristics and medical history were recorded.
resultsMedian values of Cystatin-C, sVCAM-1, and Pappalysin-1 in the PE group as compared to controls were 909.1 gEq/mL versus 480.0 gEq/mL, P = .000, 832.0 gEq/mL versus 738.8 gEq/mL, P = .024, and 234.4 gEq/mL versus 74.9 gEq/mL, P = .064, respectively. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC, standard error (SE)) for predicting PE were Cystatin-C: 0.90 (SE 0.04), VCAM-1: 0.66 (SE 0.074), and Pappalysin-1: 0.63 (SE 0.083). To discriminate between cases at risk for PE and normal controls, cut-off values of 546.8 gEq/mL for Cystatin-C, 1059.5 gEq/mL for sVCAM-1, and 220.8 gEq/mL for Pappalysin-1 were chosen, providing sensitivity of 91%, 41%, and 54% and specificity of 85%, 100%, and 95%, respectively.
conclusionssVCAM-1 and Pappalysin-1 do not improve early screening for PE. Cystatin-C, however, seems to be associated with subsequent PE development, but larger studies are necessary to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.