Trial reportBulletin of the World Health Organization2020
Population-level data on antenatal screening for proteinuria; India, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan.
Trial report in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the prevalence and prognosis of proteinuria at enrolment in the 27 intervention clusters of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia cluster randomized trials.
methodsWe identified pregnant women eligible for inclusion in the trials in their communities in four countries (2013-2017). We included women who delivered by trial end and received an intervention antenatal care visit. The intervention was a community health worker providing supplementary hypertension-oriented care, including proteinuria assessment by visual assessment of urinary dipstick at the first visit and all subsequent visits when hypertension was detected. In a multilevel regression model, we compared baseline prevalence of proteinuria (≥ 1+ or ≥ 2+) across countries. We compared the incidence of subsequent complications by baseline proteinuria.
findingsBaseline proteinuria was detected in less than 5% of eligible pregnancies in each country (India: 234/6120; Mozambique: 94/4234; Nigeria: 286/7004; Pakistan: 315/10 885), almost always with normotension (India: 225/234; Mozambique: 93/94; Nigeria: 241/286; Pakistan: 264/315). There was no consistent relationship between baseline proteinuria (either ≥ 1+ or ≥ 2+) and progression to hypertension, maternal mortality or morbidity, birth at < 37 weeks, caesarean section delivery or perinatal mortality or morbidity. If proteinuria testing were restricted to women with hypertension, we projected annual cost savings of 153 223 981 United States dollars (US$) in India, US$ 9 055 286 in Mozambique, US$ 53 181 933 in Nigeria and US$ 38 828 746 in Pakistan.
conclusionOur findings question the recommendations to routinely evaluate proteinuria at first assessment in pregnancy. Restricting proteinuria testing to pregnant women with hypertension has the potential to save resources.
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.