Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Universal Screening Versus Case Finding for Detection and Treatment of Thyroid Hormonal Dysfunction During Pregnancy

Negro, Roberto, Schwartz, Alan, Gismondi, Riccardo, Tinelli, Andrea, Mangieri, Tiziana, Stagnaro-Green, Alex·2010·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

CONTEXT: Thyroid disease during pregnancy has been associated with multiple adverse outcomes. Whether all women should be screened for thyroid disease during pregnancy is controversial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether treatment of thyroid disease during pregnancy decreases the incidence of adverse outcomes and compare the ability of universal screening vs. case finding in detecting thyroid dysfunction. DESIGN: Women in the first trimester were randomly assigned to the universal screening group or case-finding group. Women in both groups were stratified as high risk or low risk based on risk factors for thyroid disease. All women in the universal screening group, and high-risk women in the case-finding group, were immediately tested for free T(4), TSH, and thyroid peroxidase antibody. Low-risk women in the case-finding group had their sera tested postpartum. SETTING: The study was conducted at two ambulatory clinics of community hospitals in southern Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 4562 women were randomly assigned to the universal screening or case-finding group. INTERVENTION: Intervention included levothyroxine in women with a TSH above 2.5 mIU/liter in TPO antibody-positive women and antithyroid medication in women with a undetectable TSH and elevated free T(4). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total number of adverse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes was measured. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in adverse outcomes between the case-finding and universal screening groups. Adverse outcomes were less likely to occur among low-risk women in the screening group than those in the case-finding group. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening compared with case finding did not result in a decrease in adverse outcomes. Treatment of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism identified by screening a low-risk group was associated with a lower rate of adverse outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2009-2009

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Negro, R., Schwartz, A., Gismondi, R., Tinelli, A., Mangieri, T., & Stagnaro-Green, A.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2010-04-01
Volume
95
Issue
4
Pages
1699-1707
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2154116297
Cited by
377
References
3
FWCI
25.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.