Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926758›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of women's health2015

Utility of proteomics in obstetric disorders: a review.

Jónathan Hernández-Núñez, Magel Valdés-Yong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of women's health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jónathan Hernández-NúñezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Alberto Fernández-Valdés, Santa Cruz del Norte, Mayabeque, Cuba.
Magel Valdés-YongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Luis Díaz Soto, Habana del Este, La Habana, Cuba.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of proteomics could explain many aspects of obstetric disorders. We undertook this review with the aim of assessing the utility of proteomics in the specialty of obstetrics. We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, BVS Bireme, and SciELO, using various search terms with the assistance of a librarian. We considered cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and systematic review articles published until October 2014 in the English or Spanish language, and evaluated their quality and the internal validity of the evidence provided. Two reviewers extracted the data independently, then both researchers simultaneously revised the data later, to arrive at a consensus. The search retrieved 1,158 papers, of which 965 were excluded for being duplicates, not relevant, or unrelated studies. A further 86 papers were excluded for being guidelines, protocols, or case reports, along with another 64 that did not contain relevant information, leaving 43 studies for inclusion. Many of these studies showed the utility of proteomic techniques for prediction, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, monitoring, and prognosis of pre-eclampsia, perinatal infection, premature rupture of membranes, preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, and ectopic pregnancy. Proteomic techniques have enormous clinical significance and constitute an invaluable weapon in the management of obstetric disorders that increase maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

Indexed as

diagnosisobstetricspredictionproteomic techniques

Identifiers

PMID25926758
PMCPMC4403688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.