ArticleFetal diagnosis and therapy2025
Third-Trimester Screening for Preeclampsia in Twins: Comparative Performance of Fetal Medicine Foundation Algorithm, Roche, and Quidel Triages.
Article in Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: We aimed to compare three preeclampsia screening methods in the third trimester: (a) Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) multi-marker algorithm (maternal factors, biophysical markers, serum placental growth factor [PlGF], and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 [sFLT-1]); (b) Roche triage (sFLT-1/PlGF), on fresh and stored samples; and (c) Quidel triage (PlGF) on stored samples.
methodsWomen with two live fetuses were enrolled at a twin clinic at 11-13 weeks' gestation. They visited the clinic every 2-4 weeks until delivery for examination. Blood testing was conducted at enrollment in the first trimester at 11-13 weeks' gestation, and at 20-22 and 32-34 weeks' gestations. Here we evaluated the screening characteristics in the third trimester and the detection rate (DR), false-positive rate (FPR), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and compared the screening efficacy based on recommended cutoffs and area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsThird-trimester analysis included 146 women with twin pregnancies, of which 24 (16.4%) had preeclampsia. Preeclampsia prediction was conducted by three methods. (1) A prospective prediction was conducted on fresh samples using the FMF algorithm risk assessment in the third trimester for twin pregnancies, which had a DR of 79.2% and a FPR of 5.3%, with PPV and NPV of 76.0% and 95.5%, respectively. (2) Roche triage was tested on fresh samples prospectively using soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFLT-1) versus placental growth factor (PlGF), with a cutoff ratio >38, had a DR of 62.5% and a FPR of 22.1%, with PPV and NPV of 37.5% and 90.7%, respectively. In addition, we repeated the testing with Roche's Triage using stored samples and the same sFLT-1/PlGF ratio>38. (3) Quidel triage was performed retrospectively using stored samples, acting according to the definition of high risk according to PlGF <12 pg/mL and medium risk according to PlGF 12-100 pg/mL, and subsequently combined the high and medium risk groups into one. The AUROC for the FMF algorithm was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99), which was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.0001) compared to the Roche triage of fresh samples at 0.74 (0.61-0.84) and stored samples at 0.76 (0.65-0.86). The AUROC for Quidel triage was 0.75 (0.64-0.86).
conclusionsIn twin pregnancy, the third-trimester FMF multi-marker algorithm is more effective for preeclampsia screening than Roche or Quidel triages. It is up to medical centers or professional societies to decide which preeclampsia screening method to adopt, according to local resources. This study describes the strength and limitations of each screening method. </p>.
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.