ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes associated with preeclampsia in twin pregnancies.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to investigate risk factors of adverse maternal outcomes associated with preeclampsia (PE) in twin pregnancies and develop a simplified clinical prediction model.
methodWe recruited pregnant women with preeclampsia who were hospitalized in Fujian Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2014 to December 2021, including singleton and twin pregnancies. We further divided twin pregnancies into adverse outcome group and non-adverse outcome group. We performed univariate analysis, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors influencing adverse maternal outcomes associated with preeclampsia in twin pregnancies, then established a predictive model. The predictive performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsTwin pregnancies with PE showed a higher prevalence of adverse outcomes compared with singleton pregnancies (17.4% VS 13.6%). Gestational age at admission less than 32 + 0 week gestational age, multipara, peak systolic blood pressure, creatinine, neutrophil/high-density lipoprotein ratio (NHR)and decreased platelet count were independent risk factors for the development of adverse outcomes of PE in twin pregnancies. The area under the ROC curve of the prediction model was 0.798 and the calibration curve indicated that adverse maternal outcomes rate predicted by the model was consistent with the actual outcome.
conclusionsThe predictive model can identify women at increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with preeclampsia in twin pregnancies, which can provide suggestion for preeclampsia in twin pregnancies and intervening timely.
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.