ArticleHeliyon2024
Validation of a new kit for preeclampsia screening: A comprehensive analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Preeclampsia is a common pregnancy complication that significantly contributes to maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, and preterm delivery. The sFlt-1/PlGF (fms-like tyrosine kinase-1/placental growth factor) ratio has demonstrated robust diagnostic value for preeclampsia. This study assessed the analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy of a novel quantitative determination kit for sFlt-1 and PlGF for the diagnosis of preeclampsia. Methods: The detection performance of the test kit was validated using the Center for Medical Device Evaluation (CMDE) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) documents. The test results were compared to those of the Elecsys immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics). Independent discovery and validation sets were used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of the preeclampsia kit. The area under the curve (AUC) for preeclampsia at different gestational ages was calculated. Results: Correlation analysis between the test and Roche kits revealed a strong concordance (sFlt-1: r = 0.9966, P < 0.0001; PlGF: r = 0.9935, P < 0.0001). The AUCs for sFlt-1, PlGF, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in diagnosing preeclampsia were 0.749, 0.795, and 0.834, respectively, in the discovery set and 0.729, 0.811, and 0.831, respectively, in the validation set. The corresponding results from the Roche kit were 0.741, 0.795, and 0.829, respectively, and 0.761, 0.864, and 0.844, respectively. Conclusions: Quantitative sFlt-1 and PlGF kits exhibited high levels of consistency with the Roche kits in terms of quantitative outcomes and diagnostic performance for preeclampsia.
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.