Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy
2022 · paper · Clinical trials
A study of treatment for mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy. The text provided shows only author listings, so it is too limited to state the findings.
5 findings
Substance The Abstract defines mild chronic hypertension as "(blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg)", but the Introduction gives "<160/110 mm Hg" and the trial used 160/105.
- p. 4 Abstract, Background
blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg
- p. 5 Introduction, paragraph 2
(which is typically defined as a blood pressure of <160/110 mm Hg)
- p. 4 Abstract, Background
mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg)
- p. 5 Introduction, paragraph 2
which is typically defined as a blood pressure of <160/110 mm Hg
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page 4 image shows '<160/100 mm Hg' in the Abstract Background. The page 5 image shows '(which is typically defined as a blood pressure of <160/110 mm Hg)' and severe hypertension as '≥160/110 mm Hg'. The trial's own cutoff is ≥160 systolic or ≥105 diastolic. No passage in the paper explains a 100 mm Hg diastolic limit. It matches neither the Introduction's definition nor the trial criteria. The Introduction's 110 is consistent with its own severe threshold, so 100 is probably the error, but only the authors can confirm the intended value.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 3, diastolic mean blood pressure: "−2.33 (−2.97 to 0.04)". The interval is not centred on the estimate (0.64 below it, 2.37 above it). With the table's SDs and the footnote's missing counts, a symmetric 95% CI would be about −2.97 to −1.69.
- p. 20 Table 3, Mean blood pressure, Diastolic row
−2.33 (−2.97 to 0.04)
- p. 11 Discussion, paragraph 2
diastolic pressure (2.3 mm Hg)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The image (p. 20, crop C018-a) shows '−2.33 (−2.97 to 0.04)' with no minus sign before 0.04. Footnote ‡ gives 71 and 79 missing, so n = 1137 and 1121. With SDs 7.4 and 8.0, SE = 0.324 and the half-width is 0.636. That reproduces the lower bound −2.97 exactly but gives an upper bound near −1.69. The Results text (p. 9) and the Discussion (p. 11) both treat the 2.3 mm Hg difference as a real reduction. A mean-difference interval is not this asymmetric, but the correct upper bound can only come from the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 3, systolic mean blood pressure: "−3.11 (−3.95 to 2.28)". The upper bound is missing its minus sign; −3.95 to −2.28 is centred on −3.11.
- p. 20 Table 3, Mean blood pressure, Systolic row
−3.11 (−3.95 to 2.28)
- p. 11 Discussion, paragraph 2
systolic blood pressure (3.1 mm Hg)
Judge's note: The image (p. 20, crop C019-a) shows '2.28' with no minus sign, while the other bounds carry '−'. n = 1137 and 1121 (footnote ‡), SDs 10.0 and 10.1, so SE = 0.423 and the half-width is 0.83. −3.11 ± 0.83 gives −3.94 to −2.28, and the midpoint of −3.95 and −2.28 is −3.115. As printed, the interval runs from −3.95 to +2.28 and crosses zero. The estimate still lies inside it, so the claim in some reviewer notes that it 'excludes' the estimate is wrong. The fix is evident.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 4, Sepsis suspected or proven, control: "163 (13.8)"; 163/1200 = 13.6%. The printed risk ratio 0.84 fits 13.6%, not 13.8%.
- p. 21 Table 4, Sepsis — Suspected or proven, Control column
163 (13.8)
- p. 21 Table 4, Sepsis, Suspected or proven
138 (11.4) 163 (13.8)
Judge's note: The image (p. 21) shows '138 (11.4) 163 (13.8) 0.84 (0.68 to 1.04)', and the control column header gives N = 1200. No footnote gives a different denominator. 163/1200 = 13.58, and (138/1208)/(163/1200) = 0.841, which matches the printed RR. 13.8% would instead give an RR of 0.83. The percentage looks like the error, so the fix is 13.6.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 3, Encephalopathy: "1 (0.1)" vs "0" with treatment effect "1.00 (1.00 to 1.00)". A risk ratio with zero events in the control group is not estimable, and other zero-cell rows (Eclampsia, HELLP) are labelled NA.
- p. 20 Table 3, Encephalopathy row
1.00 (1.00 to 1.00)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The image (p. 20) shows 1 (0.1) vs 0 and '1.00 (1.00 to 1.00)'. With 1 event versus 0 events the ratio has a zero denominator. A degenerate interval of 1.00 to 1.00 does not fit any standard estimator. The Eclampsia (0 vs 1) and HELLP (0 vs 3) rows show NA, as do Stroke and MI (0 vs 0). The authors need to say whether this entry should be NA.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
12 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording The Methods say "Patients with a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic pressure of less than 90 mm Hg were also eligible to participate" without restricting this to treated patients, while the Results list BP <140/90 in untreated or nonadherent patients as the main exclusion reason.
- p. 6 Methods, Eligibility, paragraph 2
Patients with a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic pressure of less than 90 mm Hg were also eligible to participate.
- p. 9 Results, Characteristics of the patients
Major reasons for exclusion were a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 6 image confirms the sentence stands on its own after the treated-patient criterion. Page 9 lists BP <140/90 in untreated or nonadherent patients as the reason for 39% of exclusions. The sentence presumably applies only to patients on treatment, but as worded it is ambiguous. This is a wording issue only.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 4 footnote ††: "The Apgar score ranges from 1 to 10"; the Apgar scale runs from 0 to 10.
- p. 22 Table 4 footnote ††
The Apgar score ranges from 1 to 10
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the Apgar score is the sum of five components each scored 0 to 2, so it ranges from 0 to 10. The image of p. 22 (crop C026-a) shows 'ranges from 1 to 10'. Nothing in the paper defines a different scale.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Sibai's front-matter affiliation reads "Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas, New York"; the Appendix lists him with the Texas institutions and gives no New York location.
- p. 1 Author affiliations
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas, New York
- p. 13 Appendix affiliations
University of Texas (B.S.)
Judge's note: Page 1 image shows 'University of Texas, New York'. In the Appendix on page 13, B.S. is listed as 'University of Texas (B.S.), and ... Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston (K.A.)', grouped with the other Texas sites. The front matter has the same stray 'New York' for Casey (Dallas) and Saade (Galveston), which points to a systematic affiliation-parsing error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Aagaard's front-matter affiliation reads "Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, New York"; the Appendix gives Houston only.
- p. 1 Author affiliations
Hospital, Houston, New York
Judge's note: Page 1 image confirms 'Houston, New York'. The Appendix on page 13 gives '...Texas Children's Hospital, Houston (K.A.)'. This is the same garbling as C001, but it affects a different author, so it is kept as its own cluster.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Hoppe's front-matter affiliation reads "UnityPoint Health–Meriter Hospital/Marshfield Clinic, Madison, New Brunswick, NJ"; the Appendix gives Madison only, grouped with Milwaukee.
- p. 2 Author affiliations
Madison, New Brunswick, NJ
Judge's note: Page 2 image confirms 'Madison, New Brunswick, NJ'. The Appendix on page 13 reads 'UnityPoint Health–Meriter Hospital/Marshfield Clinic, Madison (K.K.H.), and ... Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (A.P.)'. 'New Brunswick, NJ' belongs to the next affiliation (Foroutan).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo August's front-matter affiliation reads "Columbia University (K.L.), Weill Cornell University, New York", carrying over Lawrence's Columbia affiliation and initials tag.
- p. 3 Author affiliations, P. August
Columbia University (K.L.), Weill Cornell University
Judge's note: Page 3 image confirms the text. The Appendix on page 13 reads 'Columbia University (K.L.), Weill Cornell University (P.A.)'. So Columbia belongs to K.L. and only Weill Cornell belongs to P.A.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Preeclampsia with severe features, active complete-case: "272/1170 (23.3)" in Table 2 and "272 patients (23.3%)" in Results; 272/1170 = 23.25%, which rounds to 23.2%.
- p. 19 Table 2, Preeclampsia with severe features, active complete-case
272/1170 (23.3)
- p. 9 Results, Primary outcome
272 patients (23.3%)
Judge's note: In the Table 2 image (p. 19, upright) the denominator 1170 is printed explicitly. The Results text on p. 9 repeats 23.3%. 272/1170 = 0.23248, which is not a rounding tie, so it rounds to 23.2. Every other percentage in the row agrees with its fraction (e.g. 336/1155 = 29.09 → 29.1). This is a small rounding error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Appendix author list (p. 13) prints the investigator's name as "Dotum Ogunyemi, M.D."; the usual spelling of this name is Dotun.
- p. 13 Appendix author list
Dotum Ogunyemi, M.D.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the investigator's first name is spelled 'Dotun'. The page image (C016-a, p. 13) does print 'Dotum Ogunyemi, M.D.'. Nothing in the files shows the correct spelling, so the authors need to check it.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The footnotes to Tables 3 and 4 read "Plus–minus values are means αSD"; the symbol should be ±, as in the Table 1 footnote ("means ±SD").
- p. 20 Table 3 footnote *
Plus–minus values are means αSD
- p. 21 Table 4 footnote *
Plus–minus values are means αSD
Judge's note: The page images of p. 20 and p. 21 show the α glyph in both footnotes, so this is not a text-extraction problem. The Table 1 footnote in the extracted text (line 843) reads '±SD'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 3, Severe hypertension plus proteinuria, active: "189 (15.7)"; 189/1208 = 15.65%, which rounds to 15.6.
- p. 20 Table 3, Severe hypertension plus proteinuria row
189 (15.7)
Judge's note: In the image (p. 20) the column header gives N = 1208. 189/1208 = 15.646, which is not a tie and rounds to 15.6. The control entry 215/1200 = 17.9 is correct. This is a small rounding error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 3, Renal failure, active: "9 (0.8)"; 9/1208 = 0.745%, which rounds to 0.7.
- p. 20 Table 3, Renal failure row
9 (0.8)
Judge's note: In the image (p. 20) N = 1208. 9/1208 = 0.745, which is below 0.75 and rounds to 0.7. A value of 0.8 comes only from rounding twice. Control 14/1200 = 1.17 → 1.2 is correct. This is a minor rounding error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 4, Intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4 (and Seizures), active: "3 (0.3)"; 3/1208 = 0.248%, which rounds to 0.2.
- p. 21 Table 4, Intraventricular hemorrhage row, active
3 (0.3)
Judge's note: The image (p. 21) shows 3 (0.3) in the active column (N = 1208) for both IVH and Seizures. 3/1208 = 0.248, which rounds to 0.2. NEC 2/1208 = 0.17 is printed correctly as 0.2, and control IVH 4/1200 = 0.33 as 0.3. This is a small rounding error.
Second check: none (judge only)