Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35412672›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2022

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of self-testing for proteinuria during hypertensive pregnancies: The UDIP study.

Bethany Ellen Jakubowski, Richard Stevens, Hannah Wilson, Layla Lavallee, Lesley Brittain, Carole Crawford, James Hodgkinson, Lisa Hinton, Lucy Mackillop, Lucy C Chappell and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Bethany Ellen JakubowskiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1033-2730
Richard StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hannah WilsonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.
Layla LavalleeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lesley BrittainBirmingham Women and Children's Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Carole CrawfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James HodgkinsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, Murray Learning Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lisa HintonTHIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Lucy MackillopNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lucy C ChappellDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Katherine Louise TuckerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research RP-PG-0614-20005National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC)National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health Research Professorship NIHR-RP-R2-12-015Primary Care Research Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the accuracy of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy.

designDiagnostic accuracy study.

settingAntenatal clinics, maternity assessment units and inpatient wards at three hospital sites. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: 345 pregnant women.

methodsPregnant women self-tested in-clinic for urinary protein using visually read dipsticks with samples then sent for laboratory estimation of the spot protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) (primary reference test). Secondary index tests included testing by antenatal healthcare professionals and an automated colorimetric reader.

main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for self-testing (primary index test) along with healthcare professional and colorimetric testing compared to the primary reference test (PCR).

results335/345 (97%) had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Self-testing had a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.79) and a specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) compared to PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of testing by healthcare professionals and the colorimetric reader were similar: sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85), respectively; specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.88), respectively.

conclusionPregnant women can visually read a dipstick for urinary protein with similar accuracy to antenatal healthcare professionals. Automated colorimetric testing was not significantly different, in contrast to some previous studies. Self-testing has the potential to form part of a self-monitoring regime in pregnancy.

Indexed as

HypertensionSelf-TestingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyProteinuriaSensitivity and SpecificityUrinalysisdiagnostic accuracy studyhypertensionpre-eclampsiapregnancyproteinuriaself-testing

Identifiers

PMID35412672
PMCPMC9790635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.