Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34954654›Full record

ReviewEBioMedicine2022

Clinical tools and biomarkers to predict preeclampsia.

Teresa M MacDonald, Susan P Walker, Natalie J Hannan, Stephen Tong, Tu'uhevaha J Kaitu'u-Lino

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in EBioMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Teresa M MacDonaldDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne. Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Susan P WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne. Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Natalie J HannanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne. Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Translational Obstetrics Group, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Stephen TongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne. Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Translational Obstetrics Group, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Tu'uhevaha J Kaitu'u-LinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne. Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Mercy Perinatal, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Translational Obstetrics Group, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: t.klino@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preeclampsia is pregnancy-specific, and significantly contributes to maternal, and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. An effective predictive test for preeclampsia would facilitate early diagnosis, targeted surveillance and timely delivery; however limited options currently exist. A first-trimester screening algorithm has been developed and validated to predict preterm preeclampsia, with poor utility for term disease, where the greatest burden lies. Biomarkers such as sFlt-1 and placental growth factor are also now being used clinically in cases of suspected preterm preeclampsia; their high negative predictive value enables confident exclusion of disease in women with normal results, but sensitivity is modest. There has been a concerted effort to identify potential novel biomarkers that might improve prediction. These largely originate from organs involved in preeclampsia's pathogenesis, including placental, cardiovascular and urinary biomarkers. This review outlines the clinical imperative for an effective test and those already in use and summarises current preeclampsia biomarker research.

Indexed as

Pre-EclampsiaBiomarkersFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPlacentaPlacenta Growth FactorPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstVascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1BiomarkersPlacenta Growth FactorVascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1BiomarkersPlacentaPredictionPreeclampsia

Identifiers

PMID34954654
PMCPMC8718967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.