ArticleCureus2025
Gestosis Score in Antenatal Care: A Practical Approach to Pre-eclampsia Risk Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Gestosis score is a first-trimester screening tool developed by the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI). This study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the gestosis score for identifying pregnant women at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia (PE) and associated adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Methods A prospective observational cohort study was conducted involving 130 pregnant women between nine and 12 weeks of gestation at a tertiary care hospital in Chennai, India. Participants were stratified into high-risk (GS ≥3) and low-risk (GS <3) groups based on clinical parameters, including BMI, mean arterial pressure, history of chronic hypertension, and use of assisted reproductive technology. Maternal and fetal outcomes were monitored until delivery. Results Of the 130 women, 39 (30%) had a GS ≥3, among whom 12 (30.7%) developed PE, compared to only 4 (4.4%) in the low-risk group (p<0.001). High GS was significantly associated with early-onset PE, intrauterine growth restriction, oligohydramnios, preterm delivery, lower gestational age at birth (36.4 vs. 38.2 weeks, p<0.001), reduced birth weight (2380 g vs. 2900 g, p<0.001), and higher rates of cesarean section and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Maternal age, obesity, anemia, chronic hypertension, and autoimmune disorders were strongly correlated with high GS. GS ≥3 demonstrated a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 76.3% for predicting PE. Conclusion GS is an effective, low-cost, and easily applicable tool for early identification of women at high risk for PE and related complications in resource-limited settings. Its integration into routine antenatal care may facilitate timely interventions and improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Further multicenter studies are recommended to validate these findings and support broader adoption in national guidelines.
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.