MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304788991 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.004

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure categories—a systematic review of the relationship with adverse pregnancy outcomes in the first half of pregnancy

2022· review· en· W4304788991 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Slade, Hiten D. Mistry, Jeffrey N. Bone, Milly Wilson, Maya Blackman, Nuhaat Syeda, Peter von Dadelszen, Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressurePreeclampsiaInternal medicinePregnancyCardiologyConfidence intervalPrehypertensionObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A relationship between the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure thresholds and adverse pregnancy outcomes has been reported, but few studies have explored the diagnostic test properties of these cutoffs. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched electronic databases (from 2017 to 2021) for reports of blood pressure measurements in pregnancy, classified according to 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association criteria, and their relationship with pregnancy outcomes. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies recording blood pressure at <20 weeks gestation were included. METHODS: Meta-analyses were used to investigate the strength of the association between blood pressure cutoffs and adverse outcomes, and the diagnostic test properties were calculated. RESULTS: Of 23 studies included, there was a stepwise relationship between the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure category (when compared with normal blood pressure of <120/80 mmHg) and the strength of the association with preeclampsia. The category of elevated blood pressure had a risk ratio of 2.0 (95% prediction interval, 0.8-4.8), the stage 1 hypertension category had a risk ratio of 3.0 (95% prediction interval, 1.1-8.5), and the stage 2 hypertension category had a risk ratio of 7.9 (95% prediction interval, 1.8-35.1). Between-study variability was related to the magnitude of the association with stronger relationships in larger studies at low risk of bias and with unselected populations with multiple routine blood pressure measurements. None of the systolic blood pressure measurements of <120 mmHg, <130/80 mmHg, or <140/90 mmHg were useful to rule out the development of preeclampsia (all negative likelihood ratios >0.2). Only a blood pressure measurement of ≥140/90 mmHg was a good predictor for the development of preeclampsia (positive likelihood ratio, 5.95). The findings were similar for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although a blood pressure of 120 to 140 over 80 to 90 mmHg at <20 weeks gestation is associated with a heightened risk for preeclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes and may assist in risk prediction in multivariable modelling, lowering the diagnostic threshold for chronic hypertension would not assist clinicians in identifying women at heightened risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207