Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41091776›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Defining high-risk pregnancy: Protocol for a systematic scoping review of clinical determinants, complications, and adverse birth outcomes.

Xiali Yang, Xin Wee Chen, Philip R A Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xiali YangSchool of Nursing, Ningxia Medical University, Ningxia, China.
Xin Wee ChenDepartment of Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-7189
Philip R A BakerDepartment of Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurately identifying clinical determinants within the medical paradigm is essential for evidence-based planning and management of high-risk pregnancies, and for preventing adverse birth outcomes through targeted interventions. However, a systematic synthesis of regional classification systems, risk factors, complications, and adverse birth outcomes associated with high-risk pregnancies remains lacking.

objectiveThis study protocol aims to systematically identify relevant published research, assess the risks of bias, and summarize the routinely collected clinical determinants/data used in classifying high-risk pregnancy status and the relationship of this status with its complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The bibliographic databases of Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, SCOPUS, and PubMed-MEDLINE will be searched for observational studies without language restrictions. The two-stage screening process will be conducted, involving independent full-text reviews, risk of bias assessments, and data extraction by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will address selective publication bias using established critical appraisal and evidence evaluation methods. Study selection and reporting will adhere to the PRISMA-P guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required, as this systematic review utilises only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database registration (registration number: CRD420251026327).

Indexed as

Pregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy, High-RiskPregnancy OutcomeFemaleHumansPregnancyRisk FactorsScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID41091776
PMCPMC12527127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.