SynthesisBioscience reports2020
Circulating endocan and preeclampsia: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Bioscience reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04630223 (Comparison of Umbilical Cord Blood Levels of Endocan in Pregnant Females With and Without Intrauterine Growth Retardation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparison of Umbilical Cord Blood Levels of Endocan in Pregnant Females With and Without Intrauterine Growth Retardation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The predictive value of endocan as a novel biomarker: an umbrella study on meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Combination of Maternal Serum ESM-1 and PLGF with Uterine Artery Doppler PI for Predicting Preeclampsia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical tools and biomarkers to predict preeclampsia.EBioMedicine · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndocan, a novel protein involved in inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, has been suggested to be related to preeclampsia, although the results of previous studies were not consistent. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential difference of circulating endocan in women with preeclampsia and those with normal pregnancy.
methodsMatched case-control studies evaluating the difference of circulating endocan between women with preeclampsia and those with normal pregnancy were identified via systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases. A random-effect model or a fixed-effect model was used to pool the results according to the heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate whether the timing of preeclampsia onset affected the outcome.
resultsOverall, eight matched case-control studies, including 451 women with preeclampsia and 442 women with normal pregnancy were included. Significant heterogeneity was detected among the included studies (P for Cochrane's Q test = 0.006, I2 = 65%). Meta-analysis with a random-effect model showed that women with preeclampsia had significantly higher circulating level of endocan compared with women with normal pregnancy (standardized mean difference = 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.62, P = 0.003). Subsequent subgroup analyses showed that the difference of circulating endocan between women with early onset preeclampsia and those with normal pregnancy was not statistically different from that between women with late-onset preeclampsia and those with normal pregnancy (P for subgroup difference = 0.81).
conclusionsWomen with preeclampsia have higher circulating endocan than those with normal pregnancy.
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.