ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2021
Evidence of under-reporting of early-onset preeclampsia using register data.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydroxychloroquine and Pre-eclampsia in a Diverse Cohort of Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.Arthritis care & research · 2024Article
- Trajectories of cardiovascular risk predict pregnancy outcomes: The Bogalusa Heart Study and the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Pre-eclampsia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly-onset preeclampsia, traditionally defined as presenting before 34 gestational weeks, is associated with even higher risks of perinatal death, placental abruption, and stroke, than late-onset preeclampsia.
objectiveWe estimated the degree of misclassification in a high-risk population of lupus pregnancies and a general population comparator when gestational age at delivery defined preeclampsia phenotype compared to first preeclampsia diagnosis.
methodsPatients with lupus and general population comparators from Sweden with ≥1 singleton pregnancy in the Medical Birth Register with a documented ICD code for preeclampsia were included (2002-2016). We used gestational age at delivery (<34 versus ≥34 weeks) to phenotype preeclampsia early- versus late-onset and then reclassified based on first preeclampsia diagnosis date in the Patient Register. We cross-tabulated the two definitions and calculated sensitivity using the visit-based definition as the reference standard for general population and lupus pregnancies, overall and among nulliparous women.
results331 pregnancies were diagnosed with preeclampsia, of which 322 were in both registers. Of those, 58 were early-onset based on gestational age at delivery (n = 29 in lupus pregnancies). Overall, 9% of early-onset preeclampsia in lupus (sensitivity 91%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75, 98) was misclassified as late-onset compared to 19% in the general population (sensitivity 81%, 95% CI 64, 92). We noted similar misclassification (4% vs 22%) among nulliparous women.
conclusionsIn the general population, early-onset preeclampsia was more likely misclassified as late-onset than in the high-risk lupus population. Relying on gestational age at delivery to phenotype preeclampsia, this way underestimates the occurrence of early-onset preeclampsia. This also suggests that the burden of early-onset preeclampsia as a public health concern may be under-reported, although this may be more applicable to milder preeclampsia where expectant management is employed. Research of biological and maternal predictors of early-onset preeclampsia may be dealing with differentially misclassified outcomes or samples.
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.