ReviewMolecular human reproduction2026
Preeclampsia 2.0: limitations and challenges of the two-stage hypothesis, and beyond.
Review in Molecular human reproduction, 2026. 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.
- 3D Placental Bed Perfusion Ultrasound: Development and Internal Validation of Trimester-Specific Prediction Models for Early- and Late-Onset Preeclampsia.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026Article
- The journey of maternal platelets through the utero-placental circulation: routes, interactions, and physiological implications.Molecular human reproduction · 2026Review
- Rethinking preeclampsia: six paradigm shifts in placental pathophysiology for maternal-foetal medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Premature placental senescence in early-onset preeclampsia: syncytiotrophoblast SASP and the maternal syndrome.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- The placental maturation inflection point: an integrative biological framework for understanding early-onset versus late-onset preeclampsia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pregnancy-specific syndrome preeclampsia remains the syndrome of hypotheses. Still, there is not a single hypothesis explaining the etiology of the full spectrum of preeclampsia. This has direct consequences for the clinical management of the syndrome. So far, no single early biomarker has been identified to predict all women who will develop preeclampsia later in pregnancy. Similarly, no preventive treatment for all types of preeclampsia has been integrated into clinical routine. Interestingly, the last decade has not seen much progress in the quest of identifying the pathophysiological processes resulting in the clinical syndrome preeclampsia. This could be due to the following: (i) the preeclampsia definition has been immensely altered and widened to include a large variety of clinical subgroups; and/or (ii) scientists and clinicians still adhere to the already challenged two-stage hypothesis and give only little room for new hypotheses. These two reasons could have thwarted the deciphering of the etiology of preeclampsia. This review will describe the limitations and challenges of the two-stage hypothesis. It will also highlight some of the new ideas and theories that have been put forward. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for new concepts that allow a better explanation of the diversity of preeclampsia regarding symptoms and time of occurrence. This in turn will result in more options to develop specific predictive biomarkers and personalized treatment options.
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.