Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34603511›Full record

ReviewEuropean cardiology2021

The Fourth Trimester: Pregnancy as a Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease.

Pensée Wu, Ki Park, Martha Gulati

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Maternal cardiovascular research and education should be prioritized in the United States.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Impact of adverse pregnancy outcomes on brain vascular health and cognition.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Sex Differences in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Global Perspective.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pensée WuSchool of Medicine, Keele University Staffordshire, UK.
Ki ParkUniversity of Florida Gainesville, FL, US.
Martha GulatiUniversity of Arizona Phoenix, AZ, US.
Keele University · GBUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnancy identifies women who may be at a greater risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), based on the development of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs), and may identify women who may benefit from atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk reduction efforts. APOs are common and although they are separate diagnoses, all these disorders seem to share an underlying pathogenesis. What is not clear is whether the APO itself initiates a pathway that results in CVD or whether the APO uncovers a woman's predisposition to CVD. Regardless, APOs have immediate risks to maternal and foetal health, in addition to longer-term CVD consequences. CVD risk assessment and stratification in women remains complex and, historically, has underestimated risk, especially in young women. Further research is needed into the role of ASCVD risk assessment and the effect of aggressive ASCVD risk modification on CVD outcomes in women with a history of APOs.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasecardiovascular riskHypertensive disorders of pregnancypre-eclampsiapreterm delivery

Identifiers

PMID34603511
PMCPMC8478146
OpenAlexW3196312676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.