ReviewObstetric medicine2017
'To test or not to test', the arguments for and against thrombophilia testing in obstetrics.
Review in Obstetric medicine, 2017. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relationship Between Thrombophilia and Modifications in First-Trimester Prenatal Screening Markers.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- The risk profiles of pregnancy-related cerebral venous thrombosis: a retrospective study in a comprehensive hospital.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- To Test or Not to Test: Routine Thrombophilia Diagnostic Screening of Women with Reproductive Failures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Recurrent Miscarriage: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/050, May 2022).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2023Article
- Genetic variation in placental insufficiency: What have we learned over time?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Thrombophilia screening revisited: an issue of personalized medicine.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians increasingly investigate women for thrombophilias due to their associations with venous thromboembolism and placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. These associations, however, are modest and based largely on retrospective data from studies with heterogeneous classifications and populations, leading to discordance between evidence and guidelines. Current evidence suggests a contributory rather than causative role for thrombophilia in placenta-mediated pregnancy complication and venous thromboembolism. With little evidence of benefit from antithrombotic therapy in placenta-mediated pregnancy complication, thrombophilia screening remains controversial. Given the low absolute risk of placenta-mediated pregnancy complication and gestational venous thromboembolism with heritable thrombophilia, universal screening is inappropriate. Selective screening for antiphospholipid syndrome is supported by robust evidence of benefit. Conversely, selective screening for heritable thrombophilia has not been shown to effectively manage placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. Therefore, at present heritable thrombophilia screening is not warranted for placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. Until we have better evidence from better stratified patient groups, caution should remain if we wish to practice evidence-based medicine.
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.