ReviewObstetric medicine2016
First trimester screening for pre-eclampsia.
Review in Obstetric medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- First-trimester ophthalmic artery Doppler for prediction of early-onset and preterm preeclampsia: a systematic review and critical appraisal.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Associations of the Mediterranean diet during pregnancy with impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes: A national prospective cohort study in Lebanon.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Reviewing Accuracy of First Trimester Screening for Preeclampsia Using Maternal Factors and Biomarkers.International journal of women's health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The commercial availability of tests in the first trimester of pregnancy that predict the later development of pre-eclampsia has prompted considerable debate regarding their clinical utility and the degree to which they fulfil the longstanding principles of screening. Such tests have been shown to achieve detection rates for early pre-eclampsia (requiring delivery prior to 34 weeks) of over 90%, for a false positive rate of 10%. However, their capacity to predict later onset pre-eclampsia, which accounts for the bulk of the disease burden, is much more limited. The relatively few studies validating the performance of these tests in different populations have demonstrated significant variations in performance. Moreover, prospective research confirming that the administration of aspirin to those screened to be high risk reduces the incidence of pre-eclampsia is yet to be completed, and there may be harms in restricting aspirin therapy to this group, given its broader beneficial effect. In light of these limitations, further development of these tests is recommended prior to their introduction to clinical practice.
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.