ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
The prognostic nutritional index is associated with preeclampsia in twin pregnancies.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the relationship between the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) during the third trimester and the risk of preeclampsia (PE) in twin pregnancies.
methodA total of 2998 twin pregnancies were enrolled in Fujian Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2015 to December 2021, including preeclampsia group (n = 421) and control group (n = 2577). The significance of the characteristic variables in predicting PE in twin pregnancies were calculated using the random forest algorithm (Boruta package) and the correlation between PNI and PE in twin pregnancies was examined in three distinct models using multivariable logistic regression corrected for confounders. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the ability for PNI to predict PE in twin pregnancies.
resultsPNI (37.92 ± 3.86 vs. 40.57 ± 3.63, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in the PE group than in the control group. After adjusting for all covariates, the PNI was negatively associated with PE in twin pregnancies (OR = 0.780; 95% CI: 0.753, 0.808). Meanwhile, the higher PNI remained an independent protective factor for PE in twin pregnancies compared to lower PNI (OR, 95% CI: 0.410, 0.438-0.530; 0.144, 0.103-0.201) in sensitivity analysis. ROC curve analysis revealed an area under curve (AUC) of 0.691 for PNI and the cut-off value of PNI was 40.162.
conclusionPNI was negatively correlated with the risk of PE in twin pregnancies, which may help in risk assessment for twin pregnancies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.