Red cell distribution width and preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Preeclampsia is a serious pregnancy-related disease which may lead to adverse health effects to the mother and fetus. Besides many publications on the association of red cell distribution width (RDW) and preeclampsia, there has been no published meta-analysis. This necessitated the present systemic review and met-analysis to assess the RDW in relation to preeclampsia. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was followed. Relevant published studies were searched in PubMed, Cochrane library, Google scholar, Scopus, Embase and CINAHL using the term “Preeclampsia OR eclampsia AND red cell distribution width OR red blood cells). Modified Newcastle – Ottawa quality assessment scale was used for critical appraisal of retrieved studies. Pooled Meta logistic regression was computed using OpenMeta Analyst software. Subgroup and meta-regression methods were performed to analyse the heterogeneity. Eleven case control studies were included in the met-analyses with a total of 951 cases (preeclampsia) and 2024 controls. The mean (SD) of the RDW level was significantly higher in women with preeclampsia compared to controls [15.10 (2.48) % vs. 14.26(1.71) %, P < 0.001]. The mean difference was 0.85, 95% CI = 0.26–1.43. Due to a high heterogeneity (I2 = 90.45, P < 0.001), the continuous random effect model was used. Eight studies compared RDW level in the mild (N = 360) with severe cases (N = 354) of preeclampsia. The RDW level was significantly higher in women with severe preeclampsia compared to those with mild preeclampsia [15.37 (2.48) % vs. 14.037(1.79) %, P < 0.001]. The mean difference was 1.07, 95% CI = 0.45–1.70. Since there is a high heterogeneity [I2 = 76.67, P < 0.001], the continuous random effect model was used. Through the met-regression model, except for the region of the study (P < 0.001), none of investigated variables (age, parity, quality of the study) was significantly associated with the investigated heterogeneity. The outliers (3studies) were removed to reduce the heterogeneity. The pooled meta-analysis of the remaining 8 studies showed a significant difference in the RDW between preeclamptic women compared with the controls. The mean difference was 0.93, 95% CI = 0.56–1.31, P < 0.001. Because of heterogeneity [I2 = 69.6, P = 0.002], the continuous random effect model was used. RDW level was significantly higher in women with preeclampsia compared to controls. Similarly, women with severe preeclampsia had significantly higher RDW than those with the mild form.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».