Source study found

Story checked

Researchers develop more precise way to identify preeclampsia from electronic health records (opens in a new tab)

medicalxpress.com · 2026-11-06

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

One claim goes further than the study. One other point was not covered by the paper.

4 supported
1 overstated
1 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Notice: Analysis is currently derived from study abstracts. Full-text paper analysis capabilities are currently in development.

Share this check

Help improve NewsLink

Tell us what worked or what needs attention in this check.

Follow the evidence trail

The story

Researchers develop more precise way to identify preeclampsia from electronic health records

medicalxpress.com · 2026-11-06

The story’s checkable claims.

Read the original story

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

One claim overstates the study. Four of six check out. One claim the study doesn't address.

4 supported
1 overstated
1 not covered

Open claim evidence

The source study

Operationalising the broad definition of pre-eclampsia: a retrospective cohort study

The Lancet. Digital Health · 2026

Open source record Open in Tessa

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

Reading mode

Scan verdicts. Open evidence only when needed.

Browse by verdict

6 claims in this story

Showing all 6 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 6OverstatedThe findings are presented as supporting better use of clinical information in EHRs and as a first step toward real-time evaluation of women with preeclampsia to facilitate timely intervention and optimize outcomes for mothers and babies.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile supports better use of structured and semi-structured EHR data for retrospective case ascertainment and research. But the step from this retrospective observational EHR study to real-time evaluation, timely intervention, and optimized maternal and infant outcomes goes beyond what the abstract-level paper evidence demonstrates. The story does acknowledge this as a first step, but the clinical-impact framing still outruns the profiled evidence.

Study evidence

Cohort assembly from linked routine maternity and neonatal records yielded 21,120 included singleton pregnancies with required data (from 33,040 pregnancies with antenatal booking information).21,120 included (of 33,040 with booking information)

“We conducted a retrospective cohort study using pseudonymised data from the Early Life Cross Linkage in Research-Born in South London (eLIXIR-BiSL) cohort, linking routine maternity and neonatal records from two trusts in South London, UK, from Oct 1, 2018, to July 11, 2023.”

Study evidence

Pre-eclampsia prevalence varied by ascertainment method, with the structured-EHR reference yielding higher prevalence than pragmatic case-finding approaches.Reference 7.7% (n=1,630); EHR semi-structured 4.5% (n=957); ICD-10 3.7% (n=773); combined 5.8% (n=1,224).

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Claim 2 of 6Not coveredIn over 21,000 pregnancies from the eLIXIR Born in South London cohort, the researchers compared clinician-recorded diagnoses, ICD-10 codes, a combination of both, and a broader digital definition based on blood pressure, urine protein, laboratory results, and maternal signs and symptoms consistent with ISSHP criteria.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedover 21,000 pregnancies

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the cohort size of 21,120 pregnancies and the comparison of semi-structured EHR entries, ICD-10 codes, their combination, and a broad ISSHP/NICE-aligned structured-EHR reference definition. However, the specific claim that the broader definition was based on blood pressure, urine protein, laboratory results, and maternal signs/symptoms is more detailed than the supplied abstract-level profile verifies.

Study evidence

“We conducted a retrospective cohort study using pseudonymised data from the Early Life Cross Linkage in Research-Born in South London (eLIXIR-BiSL) cohort, linking routine maternity and neonatal records from two trusts in South London, UK, from Oct 1, 2018, to July 11, 2023.”

Study evidence

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Claim 3 of 6SupportedResearchers at King's College London found a more effective method for identifying preeclampsia from electronic health records, allowing them to capture cases and associated adverse outcomes that existing methods may miss.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that a broad structured-EHR reference definition identified more pre-eclampsia cases than semi-structured clinician/drop-down entries, ICD-10 codes, or their combination, and that simpler case-finding definitions detected fewer adverse outcomes. The claim is hedged and associational, so it is supported, but only within the paper’s comparator framework using the structured-EHR reference definition rather than an independent clinical gold standard.

Study evidence

“We conducted a retrospective cohort study using pseudonymised data from the Early Life Cross Linkage in Research-Born in South London (eLIXIR-BiSL) cohort, linking routine maternity and neonatal records from two trusts in South London, UK, from Oct 1, 2018, to July 11, 2023.”

Study evidence

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Claim 4 of 6SupportedThe study suggests that using EHR data could be optimized to improve the accuracy of maternity care research.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper’s interpretation, as profiled, supports improving EHR case ascertainment by integrating structured and semi-structured information and using better data-mining approaches. The story frames this as a hedged suggestion about improving maternity-care research accuracy, which is consistent with the abstract-level evidence.

Study evidence

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Study evidence

Case-finding definitions captured a smaller proportion of pregnancies with severe maternal hypertension than the structured-EHR reference definition.Severe hypertension detection rates: EHR semi-structured 26.0%; ICD-10 28.1%; combined 32.6%; reference 68.2%.

“...Diagnostic test properties and adverse outcome detection rates were assessed.”

Claim 5 of 6SupportedThe digital approach identified 7.7% of pregnancies as having preeclampsia, compared with 4.5% using clinician-recorded data, 3.7% using ICD-10 codes, and 5.8% using both.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated7.7% vs 4.5% vs 3.7% vs 5.8%

Why this verdict

The reported pre-eclampsia prevalence values match the profile: 7.7% for the structured-EHR reference definition, 4.5% for semi-structured EHR entries, 3.7% for ICD-10 codes, and 5.8% for the combined semi-structured plus ICD-10 definition.

Study evidence

“We conducted a retrospective cohort study using pseudonymised data from the Early Life Cross Linkage in Research-Born in South London (eLIXIR-BiSL) cohort, linking routine maternity and neonatal records from two trusts in South London, UK, from Oct 1, 2018, to July 11, 2023.”

Study evidence

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Claim 6 of 6SupportedFor severe hypertension, the digital approach identified 68% of cases, compared with 26% using clinically recorded data, 28% using ICD-10 codes, and 33% using both.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated68% vs 26% vs 28% vs 33%

Why this verdict

The severe hypertension detection rates are supported, with the story rounding the profiled values: reference definition 68.2%, semi-structured EHR 26.0%, ICD-10 28.1%, and combined 32.6%.

Study evidence

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

Study evidence

“...Diagnostic test properties and adverse outcome detection rates were assessed.”

Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

The pragmatic case-finding definitions had high specificity, about 97%, but poor sensitivity, about 29–37%, when compared with the structured-EHR reference definition.
The story conveys that existing approaches may miss cases, which reflects low sensitivity qualitatively, but it does not report or explain the high specificity finding. Omitting high specificity can make the simpler definitions sound uniformly inaccurate rather than specific but insensitive.
From retrospective cohort diagnostic-comparison; Retrospective cohort study (linked routine EHR)
The diagnostic comparisons are against the study’s structured-EHR reference definition, not an independent clinical gold standard.
The story uses language such as more precise, more effective, and improved accuracy, but it does not make clear that sensitivity and specificity are measured relative to the authors’ EHR-derived reference definition rather than independent adjudicated diagnoses. This is an interpretation-changing limitation.
From retrospective cohort diagnostic-comparison; Retrospective cohort study (linked routine EHR)
Generalisability is limited because the data came from routine EHRs in two South London NHS trusts over a specific time period, with eligibility requiring at least one recorded blood pressure measurement from 20 weeks and birth at a contributing trust.
The story identifies the South London cohort but does not present this as a limitation or mention the eligibility restrictions that may exclude pregnancies with incomplete records.
From Retrospective cohort using linked routinely collected maternity and neonatal EHR; Retrospective cohort study (linked rou

5 things the story did carry across

The study was a retrospective observational analysis of linked routine maternity and neonatal EHR data from the eLIXIR-BiSL cohort in two South London NHS trusts, covering Oct 2018 to July 2023 and including 21,120 eligible singleton pregnancies.
A broad structured-EHR reference definition aligned with ISSHP/NICE identified higher pre-eclampsia prevalence than semi-structured clinician/drop-down data, ICD-10 codes, or their combination.
The paper’s adverse-outcome comparison included severe maternal hypertension and birthweight below the 10th percentile, with lower detection under the simpler case-finding definitions than under the reference definition.
Reliance on routine EHR fields means cases or outcomes not recorded in structured or semi-structured fields may be missed, and record inconsistency can affect ascertainment.
The paper supports improved case ascertainment and research use of EHR data, but it does not evaluate real-time clinical deployment, interventions, or improved maternal/neonatal outcomes.

Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataEvaluate and compare three pragmatic EHR case-finding definitions (semi-structured drop-down data; ICD-10 codes; combined) against the broad structured-EHR reference definition using diagnostic test properties (sensitivity/specificity) and prevalence impact.retrospective cohort diagnostic-comparisonExpand

In plain English

Retrospective cohort diagnostic-comparison study (n=21,120 pregnancies) evaluating three pragmatic EHR case-finding definitions for pre-eclampsia (semi-structured drop-down entries; ICD-10 codes; combined semi-structured+ICD-10) against a broad structured-EHR reference definition aligned with ISSHP and NICE. The study reports prevalence by definition, sensitivity and specificity of each case-finding definition versus the structured reference, and compares detection rates for adverse outcomes (including severe maternal hypertension and birthweight <10th percentile). Case-finding definitions had high specificity (~97%) but low sensitivity (29–37%) and detected substantially fewer adverse outcomes than the structured-EHR reference.

Key findings

Pre-eclampsia prevalence varied by ascertainment method, with the structured-EHR reference yielding higher prevalence than pragmatic case-finding approaches.Reference 7.7% (n=1,630); EHR semi-structured 4.5% (n=957); ICD-10 3.7% (n=773); combined 5.8% (n=1,224).
Pragmatic case-finding definitions had high specificity but poor sensitivity versus the structured-EHR reference.Specificity ~97% (95% CI 97–97) for all case-finding definitions; sensitivity ranged 29% (26–31) to 37% (35–40).

“...was compared with three case-finding definitions: semi-structured EHR data using drop-down menus (EHR semi-structured definition); ICD-10 codes (ICD-10 definition); and combined semi-structured EHR data and ICD-10 codes (EHR semi-structured and ICD-10 definition). Diagnostic test properties... were assessed.”

2secondary dataOperationalise a broad, guideline-aligned reference definition of pre-eclampsia using structured EHR elements in a linked maternity–neonatal dataset (eLIXIR-BiSL), and estimate pre-eclampsia prevalence under this reference definition.Retrospective cohort using linked routinely collected maternity and neonatal EHRExpand

In plain English

Retrospective cohort study implementing a broad, guideline-aligned reference definition of pre-eclampsia using structured EHR elements in the eLIXIR-BiSL linked maternity–neonatal dataset (two South London NHS trusts, Oct 2018–Jul 2023), and estimating prevalence among eligible singleton pregnancies with ≥1 blood pressure measurement from 20 weeks' gestation. The reference definition (aligned to ISSHP and NICE; incorporated structured evidence of maternal end-organ dysfunction and/or uteroplacental dysfunction) identified 1,630 pre-eclampsia cases (7.7%) among 21,120 included pregnancies.

Key findings

Cohort assembly from linked routine maternity and neonatal records yielded 21,120 included singleton pregnancies with required data (from 33,040 pregnancies with antenatal booking information).21,120 included (of 33,040 with booking information)
Using the structured-EHR, guideline-aligned reference definition, pre-eclampsia prevalence was 7.7% in the analysed cohort.7.7% (n=1,630 of 21,120)

“We conducted a retrospective cohort study using pseudonymised data from the Early Life Cross Linkage in Research-Born in South London (eLIXIR-BiSL) cohort, linking routine maternity and neonatal records from two trusts in South London, UK, from Oct 1, 2018, to July 11, 2023.”

What this piece can’t prove

Use of retrospective routinely collected EHR from two NHS trusts in South London may limit generalisability beyond the study setting/timeframe (Oct 2018–Jul 2023).
Analysis required at least one recorded blood pressure measurement from 20 weeks and birth at a contributing trust, which may exclude some pregnancies with incomplete records.
Operationalisation relied on structured EHR fields to capture maternal end-organ and uteroplacental dysfunction; cases not recorded in structured fields may be missed.

3secondary dataAssess how choice of pre-eclampsia definition affects detection rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes (eg, severe hypertension, birthweight <10th percentile) in EHR data.Retrospective cohort study (linked routine EHR)Expand

In plain English

In a retrospective cohort of 21,120 singleton pregnancies with ≥1 blood pressure measurement from 20 weeks' gestation in linked maternity and neonatal EHRs (eLIXIR-BiSL; Oct 2018–Jul 2023), the authors compared a broad structured-EHR reference definition of pre-eclampsia with three case-finding definitions (semi-structured EHR, ICD-10 codes, and combined semi-structured+ICD-10) and reported markedly lower detection rates of key adverse outcomes (severe maternal hypertension and birthweight <10th percentile) when using the case-finding definitions versus the reference definition.

Key findings

Case-finding definitions captured a smaller proportion of pregnancies with severe maternal hypertension than the structured-EHR reference definition.Severe hypertension detection rates: EHR semi-structured 26.0%; ICD-10 28.1%; combined 32.6%; reference 68.2%.
Case-finding definitions captured a smaller proportion of pregnancies with birthweight <10th percentile than the structured-EHR reference definition.Birthweight <10th percentile detection rates: EHR semi-structured 9.7%; ICD-10 10.6%; combined 13.3%; reference 26.2%.

“...Diagnostic test properties and adverse outcome detection rates were assessed.”

What this piece can’t prove

Findings derive from routine, pseudonymised EHR data from two NHS trusts in South London and may not generalise to other settings or data systems.
Retrospective EHR-based ascertainment and reliance on available structured and semi-structured fields and ICD-10 coding may undercapture some clinical events.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer