Prenatal screening for pre-eclampsia: Frequently asked questions.

Dagmar Wertaschnigg, Maya Reddy, Ben W J Mol, Daniel L Rolnik, Fabricio da Silva Costa

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

Evidence-Based Prevention of Preeclampsia: Commonly Asked Questions in Clinical Practice.Journal of pregnancy · 2019
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Dagmar WertaschniggDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Maya ReddyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Ben W J MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Daniel L RolnikDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2263-3592

Fabricio da Silva CostaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Monash Health · AUParacelsus Medical University · ATUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

Drs Haackert Foundation, GermanyParacelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria L-18/02/006

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current approach to screening for pre-eclampsia is based on guidelines that rely on medical and obstetric history in early pregnancy to select a high-risk group that might benefit from low-dose aspirin. However, combined screening tests with the addition of biophysical and biochemical measurements have shown significantly better detection rates for preterm pre-eclampsia. Furthermore, the administration of aspirin for the 10% screen-positive group can lead to a significant reduction in severe and preterm forms of pre-eclampsia. This review aims to answer frequently asked questions related to the clinical implementation of screening and the management of screening results.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisFemaleHumansPre-EclampsiaPregnancyRisk Factorsaspirinhypertensive disorders in pregnancypre-eclampsiapreventionscreening

Identifiers

PMID31119729

DOI10.1111/ajo.12982

PMCPMC6767595

OpenAlexW2945482747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.