Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36440041›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Yixiao Wang, Xiaojun Guo, Nathan Obore, Hongjuan Ding, Chengqian Wu, Hong Yu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Association betweenFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yixiao WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Xiaojun GuoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Nathan OboreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Hongjuan DingNanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Institute, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Chengqian WuNanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing Maternal and Child Health Institute, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Hong YuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CNNanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The results of randomized controlled studies on aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia (PE) are conflicting, and some of the related meta-analyses also have limitations or flaws. Data sources: A search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, with no time or language restrictions. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled studies comparing aspirin for the prevention of PE were conducted. Methods: Systematic reviews were performed according to the Cochrane Manual guidelines. A fixed-effects model or a random-effects model was chosen to calculate pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals based on the heterogeneity of the included studies. The study aimed to investigate the effect of aspirin on the development of PE in high-risk and general populations of women. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. All included studies were assessed for bias by the Cochrane Manual of Bias Assessment. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the aspirin dose, time of initial aspirin intervention, and the region in which the research was conducted, to explore the effective dose of aspirin and time of initial aspirin intervention and to try to find sources of heterogeneity and publication bias. Results: A total of 39 articles were included, including 29 studies involving pregnant women at high risk for PE (20,133 patients) and 10 studies involving a general population of pregnant women (18,911 patients). Aspirin reduced the incidence of PE by 28% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83) in women at high risk for PE. Aspirin reduced the incidence of PE by 30% in the general population (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95), but sensitivity analyses found that aspirin in the general population was not robust. A subgroup analysis showed that an aspirin dose of 75 mg/day (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.78) had a better protective effect than other doses. Starting aspirin at 12-16 weeks (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.74) of gestation or 17-28 weeks (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.89) reduced the incidence of PE by 38% in women at high risk for PE, but the results were more reliable for use at 12-16 weeks. Heterogeneity and publication bias of the included studies may be mainly due to the studies completed in Asia. Conclusion: Aspirin is recommended to be started at 12-16 weeks of pregnancy in women at high risk for PE. The optimal dose of aspirin to use is 75 mg/d. Systematic review registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [CRD42022319984].

Indexed as

aspirinmeta-analysispreeclampsiapregnancysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36440041
PMCPMC9682183
OpenAlexW4308722507

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.