ArticleBMJ open2025
Risk predictors of severe adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Predictive value of uric acid and lactate dehydrogenase for maternal morbidity in preeclampsia: a retrospective case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Risk stratification and prediction of emergency delivery in early-onset preeclampsia using machine learning.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPre-eclampsia (PE) remains a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality globally. Early identification of risk factors and evaluation of prognostic models for severe adverse maternal outcomes are essential for improving management and reducing complications. While numerous studies have explored potential risk markers, there is still no consensus on the most reliable factors and models to use in clinical practice. This systematic review aims to consolidate research on both individual predictors and prognostic models of severe adverse maternal outcomes in PE, providing a comprehensive overview to support better clinical decision-making and patient care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review follows the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocol 2015 checklist. A systematic search will be performed using a detailed strategy across Medline, Embase, Cochrane, ProQuest dissertations, and grey literature from inception to 2 April 2024. Eligible studies will include those investigating clinical, laboratory-based, and sociodemographic predictors of severe adverse maternal outcomes in PE. Two reviewers will independently assess titles, abstracts, full texts, and extract data and assess study quality using the Quality In Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool for studies on risk predictors and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic models. The inclusion criteria will encompass cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published in English and French involving women diagnosed with PE and reporting on the risk prediction for adverse maternal outcomes. The main outcomes of interest will include severe maternal morbidity and mortality during pregnancy, delivery, or within the postpartum period. Analyses will include both narrative synthesis and, where appropriate, meta-analysis using random-effects models. Pooled estimates will be calculated, with publication bias assessed through funnel plots and statistical tests (eg, Begg's and Egger's). Heterogeneity will be primarily assessed through visual inspection of forest plots, supported by statistical measures, such as the I² test, with further exploration through sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will be based on published data and will not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517097.
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.