SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Inconsistencies in recommendations for the preventive management of pre-eclampsia and quality assessment of international guidelines: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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.
- Knowledge, practice patterns, and guideline implementation for pre-eclampsia risk management among obstetricians in China: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecommendations for the preventive management of pre-eclampsia remain inconsistent across existing guidelines, which may adversely affect clinical decision-making. It is crucial to summarize and compare the existing guidelines to identify inconsistencies and guide future research.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and quality assessment of clinical guidelines for the preventive management of pre-eclampsia. Six literature databases and 19 guideline databases or official websites were searched from their inception to May 31, 2024. Two reviewers initially screened the retrieved articles. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Five reviewers appraised the quality using the AGREE II instrument. Basic characteristics of the guidelines were described as frequency and proportion. A qualitative analysis was performed to compare inconsistencies in the recommendations. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate the consistency of item scores in the AGREE II tool among reviewers. The standardized domain scores for all guidelines were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). The Heat maps and Sankey diagrams were generated to visualize variations.
resultsA total of 32 guidelines published between 2004 and 2024 were included. Recommendations for risk factors exhibited marked variations, with only 8 (27%) guidelines integrating all three categories (maternal, biochemical, imaging-defined). Most guidelines (12 of 14) recommended qualitative methods to classify patients into low-, moderate-, or high-risk categories. The Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm was the only quantitative model endorsed for prediction. Aspirin was universally recommended for high-risk women, but with wide variations in dose and timing. The highest recommended dose was more than three times the lowest dose. The most frequently recommended initiation time was before 16 weeks’ gestation, with cessation at 36 weeks’ gestation the most common. Guideline quality was generally high (87.5% rated excellent overall), but the “Rigour of Development” domain scored lowest (median 43.8%), revealing key methodological shortcomings in updating procedures.
conclusionsSubstantial inconsistencies persist in recommendations for the preventive management of pre-eclampsia across existing guidelines, highlighting the need for further research. Moreover, the methodological rigor of guideline development requires enhancement to ensure more reliable clinical advice.
trial registrationID CRD42024557782
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.