ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Increase of augmentation index (AIx@75): a promising tool for screening hypertensive pregnancy disorders.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applied physiology at the bedside: using invasive blood pressure as a true monitoring tool.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundScreening tools in the first trimester of pregnancy for hypertensive pregnancy disorders need to be determined.
objectivesTo compare cardiovascular parameters between pregnant (PG) and non-pregnant women (NPG) and to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of arterial stiffness indices in screening for hypertensive pregnancy disorders and their possible association with the mean uterine artery pulsatility index (MUA-PI).
methodsThis study included 77 pregnant women (11-13.6 gestational weeks) and 77 age-matched non-pregnant women. Cardiovascular parameters were non-invasively measured using Mobil- O-Graph
resultsAugmentation index (AIx@75) was significantly higher in PG compared to NPG. ROC curve of AIx@75 showed area under curve (AUC): 0.7303, Sensitivity: 74.03% and Specificity: 64.94% and Cutoff: 22.50%. The systolic volume index was lower and the heart rate was higher in PG compared to NPG. Of the 77 pregnant women, 12 had an unfavorable outcome with hypertensive changes. Central systolic blood pressure (109.1 ± 8.84mmHg) and AIx@75 (31.97 ± 5.47%) were significantly higher in the group of pregnant women with outcome compared to the group without outcome (103.0 ± 8.53mmHg and 26.80 ± 8.71%). ROC curve showed better performance of the AIx@75 [AUC: 0.7179, Sensitivity: 83.33% and Specificity: 60.00%, Cutoff: 27.67%] compared to MUA-PI [AUC: 0.5098, Sensitivity: 8.333% and Specificity 98.44%].
conclusionsAIx@75 was significantly higher in PG compared to NPG. We compared the AIx@75 of PG with and without outcomes. ROC curve analysis showed that this index could discriminate between PG with and without an outcome. Differently, the MUA-PI did not differ between PG with and without outcome, suggesting the superiority of AIx@75 in relation to MUA-PI as a method of screening in the first trimester for hypertensive disease of pregnancy. AIx@75 did not assotiate with MUA-PI. Prospective studies will be needed to confirm these findings.
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.