The story discusses new findings in the early detection of pre-eclampsia and mentions that this may lead to new drug treatments for this pregnancy-related condition. The new findings will likely lead to a blood test for certain proteins as early markers of pre-eclampsia. The story mentions that this early screening for pre-eclampsia may be available in a few months. The story does not mention the estimated cost of the new test.
The story mentions that the only treatment for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery of the baby no matter what the gestational age. This is typically the case, but it may not be the only treatment, depending on the severity of pre-eclampsia. Sometimes, if a woman is far from term her blood pressure may be controlled by medication and she and her unborn baby may be monitored in the hospital. Additionally, true pre-eclampsia also involves changes in kidney function, that is, more protein in the urine, so high blood pressure in pregnancy does not always result in pre-eclampsia. The story does provide prevalence data of pre-eclampsia and related premature births; however, the story only uses one woman’s story of a worst case scenario. Many women who develop pre-eclampsia during pregnancy are near term and deliver healthy babies, though some are premature.
The story claims that the new findings would “greatly reduce one of the most feared complications of pregnancy”. We do not yet know if having this test will be able to prevent the changes of pre-eclampsia or reduce premature births. Current medications and treatments would still be used even if the onset of pre-eclampsia could be predicted and treated earlier in pregnancy. There is no quantification of the benefit of this test for pre-eclampsia. It may very well lead to early detection and treatment of dangerously high blood pressure in pregnancy, but discussion of new drugs is speculative at this time. Earlier treatment with existing blood pressure medications may harm the development of the fetus. Newer drugs might help the mother, but deprive the fetus of blood.
The story does not emphasize that the treatment of pre-eclampsia is a constant weighing of the benefits for the mother (i.e. prevention of eclampsia and the effects of high-blood pressure on the kidneys) against the health and development of the fetus. Lastly, the condition may “end right after pregnancy”, but women who develop pre-eclampsia are at greater risk of developing the condition in a subsequent pregnancy, and they are at greater risk of high blood pressure and related heart disease later in life.
The story does not mention the estimated cost of the new test for pre-eclampsia.
There is no quantification of the benefit of this test for pre-eclampsia. It may very well lead to early detection and treatment of dangerously high blood pressure in pregnancy, but discussion of new drugs is speculative at this time.
Earlier treatment with existing blood pressure medications may harm the development of the fetus. Newer drugs might help the mother, but deprive the fetus of blood. There is no mention in this story that the treatments of pre-eclampsia are a constant weighing of the benefits for the mother (i.e. prevention of eclampsia and the effects of high-blood pressure on the kidneys) against the health and development of the fetus.
The story does not discuss the study (or studies) in which these potential markers for pre-elcampsia were found. Also, the story claims that this finding would “greatly reduce one of the most feared complications of pregnancy”. We do not yet know if having this test will be able to prevent the changes of pre-eclampsia or reduce premature births. Current medications and treatments would still be used even if pre-eclampsia could be predicted and was treated earlier in pregnancy.
The story does provide prevalence data of pre-eclampsia and related premature births; however, the story only uses one woman’s story of a worst case scenario. Many women who develop pre-eclampsia during pregnancy are near term and deliver healthy babies, though some are premature.
The story provides interviews with a study author, as well as a practicing obstetrician to get perspective on this potential advance in the detection and treatment of pre-eclampsia. The story may have been stronger if it included a little more about the study details.
The story mentions that the only treatment for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery of the baby no matter what the gestational age. This is typically the case, but it may not be the only treatment, depending on the severity of pre-eclampsia. Sometimes, if a woman is very far from term her blood pressure may be controlled by medication and she and her unborn baby may be monitored in the hospital. Additionally, true pre-eclampsia also involves changes in kidney function, that is, more protein in the urine, so high blood pressure in pregnancy does not always result in pre-eclampsia.
The story discusses new findings that may result in the early detection of pre-eclampsia. The story mentions that this may lead to new drugs for the treatment of this pregnancy-related condition. The story mentions that the test to screen for pre-eclampsia may be available in a few months.
A blood test to detect certain proteins as early markers of pre-eclampsia is a new approach to possibly preventing complications related to this condition.
The story does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like