ReviewMolecular biology reports2024
Potential urinary biomarkers in preeclampsia: a narrative review.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the association of albuminuria with the incidence of preeclampsia and its predictive capabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of cystatin C in acute coronary syndrome: An up-to-date meta-analysis.Cardiology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of leucine-rich diet on placenta's proteomic and metabolomic profiles of pregnant tumor-bearing rats.Cancer biology & therapy · 2026Article
- Urinary Congophilia in Pre-Eclampsia: A Potential Diagnostic Biomarker.Journal of pregnancy · 2026Review
- Oxidative Stress, Lipid Peroxidation and Ferroptosis Are Major Pathophysiological Signatures in the Placental Tissue of Women with Late-Onset Preeclampsia.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPreeclampsia (PE) is a highly relevant pregnancy-related disorder. An early and accurate diagnosis is crucial to prevent major maternal and neonatal complications and mortality. Due to the association of kidney dysfunction with the pathophysiology of the disease, urine samples have the potential to provide biomarkers for PE prediction, being minimally invasive and easy to perform. Therefore, searching for novel biomarkers may improve outcomes. This narrative review aimed to summarize the scientific literature about the traditional and potential urinary biomarkers in PE and to investigate their applicability to screen and diagnose the disorder.
methodsA non-systematic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SciELO databases.
resultsThere is significant divergence in the literature regarding traditionally used serum markers creatinine, cystatin C, and albuminuria, accuracy in PE prediction. As for the potential renal biomarkers investigated, including vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF), placental growth factor (PlGF), and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase (sFlt-1), urinary levels of PlGF and sFtl-1/PlGF ratio in urine seem to be the most promising as screening tests. The assessment of the global load of misfolded proteins through urinary congophilia, podocyturia, and nephrinuria has also shown potential for screening and diagnosis. Studies regarding the use of proteomics and metabolomics have shown good accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for predicting the development and severity of PE.
conclusionHowever, there are still many divergences in the literature, which requires future and more conclusive research to confirm the predictive role of urinary biomarkers in pregnant women with PE.
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.