ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2025
The accuracy of the fullPIERS model in predicting adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes: evidence from a tertiary care maternity unit.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the fullPIERS model for predicting severe maternal outcomes in preeclampsia in five Brazilian centers.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Protocol for the external validation of machine learning models for risk prediction in early-onset preeclampsia: a multicenter prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Incremental prognostic value of the fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio for adverse perinatal outcomes in preeclampsia: a dual-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The Turkish validation of the fullPIERS model to predict adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in preeclamptic pregnancies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Low- and middle-income countries face significant challenges in managing women diagnosed with pre-eclampsia, from making the clinical decision about whether to deliver to transferring these women to healthy facilities where they can receive appropriate care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance and accuracy of the fullPIERS model in a referral Brazilian maternity hospital - to assess maternal and fetal morbidity and impatient mortality at birth admission. Methods: A cross-sectional study analyzed pregnant women with preeclampsia diagnosis, between 2014 and 2023. The full PIERS model was applied to a database retrospectively collected and its accuracy to predict maternal and perinatal outcomes during the hospital stay was determined through a receiver operating curve. Results: Analyzing 207 pregnant women with fullPIERS had an Area Under the Curve (AUC) for adverse maternal outcome discrimination of 0.672 (0.576-0.767 95% CI, p<0.001) and AUC 0.582, (0.504-0.6661 95% CI, p = 0.041) for maternal and perinatal outcomes. Nevertheless, the model had no discrimination utility to assess perinatal outcomes (AUC 0.561, 0.480-0.642 95% CI, p = 0.642). Conclusion: The fullPIERS model had limited performance in identifying women at increased risk of adverse outcomes birth admission and absent utility to assess perinatal outcomes. Future studies, combining different tools and validated in low- and middle-income countries should be carried out to improve maternal health.
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.