Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26582404›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital.

Elizabeth Anne McCarthy, Thomas A Carins, Yolanda Hannigan, Nadia Bardien, Alexis Shub, Susan P Walker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth Anne McCarthyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Thomas A CarinsDepartment of Emergency, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Yolanda HanniganDepartment of Medicine, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Nadia BardienDepartment of Perinatal Medicine, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Alexis ShubDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Susan P WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Mercy Hospital for Women · AUAustin Health · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe asked whether 60 compared with 240 min observation is sufficiently informative and safe for pregnancy day assessment (PDAC) of suspected pre-eclampsia (PE).

designA retrospective study of 209 pregnant women (475 PDAC assessments, 6 months) with routinely collected blood pressure (BP), symptom and laboratory information. We proposed a 60 min screening algorithm comprising: absence of symptoms, normal laboratory parameters and ≤1high-BP reading (systolic blood pressure, SBP 140 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure, DBP 90 mm Hg or higher). We also evaluated two less inclusive screening algorithms. We determined short-term outcomes (within 4 h): severe hypertension, proteinuric hypertension and pregnancy-induced hypertension, as well as long-term outcome: PE-related diagnoses up to the early puerperium. We assessed performance of alternate screening algorithms performance using 2×2 tables.

results1 in 3 women met all screen negative criteria at 1 h. Their risk of hypertension requiring treatment in the next 3 h was 1.8% and of failing to diagnose proteinuric hypertensive PE at 4 h was 5.1%. If BP triggers were 5 mm Hg lower, 1 in 6 women would be screen-negative of whom 1.1% subsequently develops treatment-requiring hypertension and 4.5% demonstrate short-term proteinuric hypertension. We present sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios for alternate screening algorithms.

conclusionsWe endorse further research into the safest screening test where women are considered for discharge after 60 min. Safety, patient and staff satisfaction should be assessed prospectively. Any screening test should be used in conjunction with good clinical care to minimise maternal and perinatal hazards of PE.

Indexed as

Blood PressureAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHospitals, MaternityHumansHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedMass ScreeningPre-EclampsiaPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsUniversities

Identifiers

PMID26582404
PMCPMC4654395
OpenAlexW2175197469

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.