ReviewJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2025
Prevention of preeclampsia by aspirin consumption in high-risk pregnancies that can be complicated with preeclampsia: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 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.
- Temporal Dynamics of Catestatin Across Gestation: Links to Metabolic and Hemodynamic Adaptation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For a long time, it has been proposed that aspirin might have a preventive property to reduce the risk of preeclampsia; however, recent assessments have changed the insights toward this medication. The current qualitative systematic review aims to thoroughly assess the outcomes of treatment with aspirin in high-risk preeclampsia women. Materials and Methods: The scope of this study was to evaluate: (1) the preventive role of treatment with aspirin on high-risk pregnancies for preeclampsia, (2) the applied dose on the incidence of preeclampsia, (3) the outcome of using aspirin alone versus in combination with an anticoagulant, and (4) the outcome of aspirin discontinuation on the incidence of preeclampsia. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2023. English-written studies with trial designs (randomized or nonrandomized) assessing the use of aspirin on preeclampsia prevention among high-risk women for this phenomenon were included. Three authors independently surfed the databases and selected the studies; in case of any disagreement, the problem was resolved by the fourth author. Then, the papers were fully screened and those that met the study criteria were individually evaluated. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials was applied categorizing the studies into low-moderate and high risk of bias. Results: Finally, data from twenty-three studies on 15,764 high-risk preeclampsia individuals with singleton pregnancies were extracted. Fourteen, 4, and 5 studies had low, moderate, and high risk of bias. Aspirin use regardless of its dosage was not remarkably associated with reduced risk of preeclampsia in the majority of studies. Besides, the time of initiation or discontinuation did not affect the outcomes. Moreover, aspirin combination with anticoagulant was not necessarily superior over aspirin alone. Conclusion: Based on our findings, the body of evidence majorly found no remarkable role for prophylactic aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia incidence at any time during pregnancy; however, promising data, particularly in higher doses and earlier initiation of aspirin, have been noted.
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.