ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
Preeclampsia prediction and diagnosis: a comprehensive historical review from clinical insights to omics perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction at high altitude: A narrative review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Regulatory T cells in pregnancy disorders: a multi-dimensional framework for biomarkers and therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Therapeutic role of low molecular weight heparin and fat-soluble vitamins in pregnancy-associated prethrombotic conditions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Concordance and Misclassification of Pre-Eclampsia in a Malaria-Endemic Setting: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Tailoring low-dose aspirin to prevent preeclampsia: translational and biomarker insights.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preeclampsia (PE) is a multifactorial and multisystemic syndrome specific to human pregnancy, traditionally characterized by hypertension and proteinuria. Affecting 2%-10% of pregnancies, PE remains a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This review traces the historical evolution of PE diagnosis, from early clinical observations to the incorporation of modern omics biomarkers. Early diagnostic criteria were based on observable clinical symptoms, but advancements in biomedical science have highlighted the significance of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors, such as sFlt-1 and PlGF, which are used as "Established Angiogenic Biomarkers." Despite these advancements, clinical consensus on the use of these biomarkers remains elusive due to their variable sensitivity. Recent integrative approaches using omics technologies have provided deeper insights into the complex pathophysiology of PE, uncovering new pathways and "Potential Molecular Biomarkers" for early diagnosis and prediction. However, challenges remain in translating these findings into clinical practice, particularly due to the need for robust validation studies and the consideration of inter-individual and population variability. This review emphasizes the importance of continued research and validation of these biomarkers in diverse cohorts to develop effective predictive tools and improve maternal and fetal outcomes. By exploring the historical and modern perspectives on PE diagnosis, this review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the disease and highlight future directions in PE research.
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.