ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2024
Comparing urine point-of-care tests to screen preeclampsia: Congo-red dot paper test versus dipstick urinalysis.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary Congophilia in Pre-Eclampsia: A Potential Diagnostic Biomarker.Journal of pregnancy · 2026Review
- Comparing urine point-of-care tests to screen preeclampsia: Congo-red dot paper test versus dipstick urinalysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the urine Congo-red dot paper test (CRD) with dipstick urinalysis to screen preeclampsia (PE). A total of 409 paired spot urine samples were obtained prospectively from women with suspected pre-eclampsia attending for routine hospital visits. Congo-red dot paper test and dipstick urinalysis were examined and compared to screen pre-eclampsia. The agreement between the two urinary test is modest (kappa coefficient = 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.42). The specificity of CRD was higher than urinalysis (97.4% vs. 90.4%, p < .001). Urinalysis performed better in sensitivity (77.3% vs. 40.9%, p = .04) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) (0.84 [95% CI 0.74-0.94] vs. 0.69 [95% CI 0.55-0.83], p = .04) than CRD, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, AUC of the parallel test of them is 86.4% (64.0%-96.4%), 89.1% (85.5%-92.0%), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.96). And the serial test is 31.8% (14.7%-54.9%), 98.7% (96.8%-99.5%), 0.65 (95% CI 0.51-0.79), accordingly. The urinalysis is a better diagnosing test for preeclampsia. CRD could aid in the diagnosis of patients with preeclampsia. Combined the two tests in suspected patients may further improve the performance in the diagnosis of preeclampsia. Further study need to be made for its potential clinical practice.
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.