Question · asked by 1 review
Universal screening vs case finding: Pre‐eclampsia
- Population
- women during pregnancy
- Intervention
- Universal screening
- Comparison
- case finding
- Outcome
- Pre‐eclampsia
Universal screening showed no clear difference in pre‐eclampsia compared with case finding (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Universal screening vs case finding Pre‐eclampsia · women during pregnancy Universal screening showed no clear difference in pre‐eclampsia compared with case finding (moderate certainty). Screening and subsequent management for thyroid dysfunction pre‐pregnancy and during pregnancy for improving… (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.87 [0.64, 1.18] | 1 study · 4516 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screening and subsequent management for thyroid dysfunction pre‐pregnancy and during pregnancy for improving maternal and infant health 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Universal screening vs No screening · women during pregnancy · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.