Observational studyFrontiers in public health2026
Knowledge, practice patterns, and guideline implementation for pre-eclampsia risk management among obstetricians in China: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pre-eclampsia remains a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, evidence regarding the implementation of risk management strategies in low- and middle-income settings remains limited. This exploratory survey assessed knowledge, clinical practices, guideline implementation, and perceived barriers related to pre-eclampsia risk management among obstetricians in China. Methods: A web-based exploratory cross-sectional survey using convenience and snowball sampling was conducted among obstetricians in China. An anonymous 38-item questionnaire was developed based on two-step pre-eclampsia risk management strategies and distributed through academic networks and professional groups. Descriptive analyses were performed using frequencies and proportions for categorical variables and medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by participant characteristics. Guideline adherence was assessed against key recommendations from four guidelines used in China. Results: Among 307 obstetricians, 91.9% reported performing pre-eclampsia risk prediction, primarily based on medical history, obstetric history, and current pregnancy factors. However, considerable variation existed in assessment timing and risk classification approaches. Although the FMF competing-risk model was recognized as important, only 61.6% had heard of the model and 36.5% reported clinical use. Limited biomarker availability and lack of automated calculation tools were the main barriers. Low-dose aspirin prophylaxis was widely reported, with 90.9% prescribing aspirin for women at moderate or high risk. The most common regimen was 100 mg once daily, initiated at 12 weeks and discontinued at 36 weeks. Only 56.0% reported initiating aspirin before 16 weeks, and 1.0% reported continuation until delivery, indicating substantial variation in aspirin management. Conclusions: This exploratory survey suggests that obstetricians in China have incorporated some components of pre-eclampsia risk management into clinical practice, but substantial variability remains in guideline implementation. Limited adoption of standardized risk assessment tools and inconsistent aspirin prophylaxis strategies highlight potential areas for improvement. Enhancing implementation support and improving access to evidence-based tools may facilitate more consistent pre-eclampsia prevention practices.
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.