ReviewJMA journal2026
Blood Pressure, Urinalysis, and Edema Assessment in Perinatal Care: From Historical Foundations to Evidence-Based Practice.
Review in JMA journal, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The triad of blood pressure measurement, urinalysis, and edema assessment has constituted the cornerstone of prenatal care for over eight decades and has been consistently recorded at each examination in Japan's Maternal and Child Health Handbook. Historically, these examinations were prioritized to facilitate the early diagnosis and treatment of pregnancy toxemia-now termed hypertensive disorders of pregnancy-which once represented a leading cause of maternal mortality. The triad has undeniably played a pivotal role in the early diagnosis, prediction, and treatment of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, while potentially contributing to the detection of other obstetric complications. However, conclusive evidence linking these conventionally performed assessments to actual pregnancy and delivery outcomes remains limited, and critical unresolved issues persist within each examination category. Blood pressure assessment requires the establishment of optimal blood pressure thresholds to achieve favorable pregnancy and perinatal outcomes; to achieve this, home blood pressure monitoring should be adopted. Evidence-based target blood pressure ranges for treatment initiation in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and therapeutic targets are urgently needed. For urinary protein assessment, the establishment of standardized criteria for postpartum proteinuria follow-up is essential. In terms of edema, critical evidence is lacking regarding the evaluation and treatment of pathological edema that adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. This review traces the historical evolution of these examinations while critically examining their contemporary role in perinatal care. A notable characteristic of this triad is its noninvasive nature and minimal cost burden. The establishment of robust evidence supporting their clinical utility could optimize maternal and fetal outcomes while maintaining cost-effective healthcare delivery.
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.