2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.07.146
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of three algorithms for prediction preeclampsia in the first trimester of pregnancy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
12
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[12][13][14][15] For overall PE in these studies, the sensitivities ranged from 30.4 to 38.2%, [13][14][15] similar to our study. However, in cases of preterm PE and early PE, the sensitivities were 39.0-47.6% [12][13][14][15] and 43.5-45.5%, 13,15 respectively, while our data were slightly lower. In PE cases that delivered before 32 weeks, we found that the sensitivity of NICE was 55% while O'Gorman et al 12 reported only 41%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…[12][13][14][15] For overall PE in these studies, the sensitivities ranged from 30.4 to 38.2%, [13][14][15] similar to our study. However, in cases of preterm PE and early PE, the sensitivities were 39.0-47.6% [12][13][14][15] and 43.5-45.5%, 13,15 respectively, while our data were slightly lower. In PE cases that delivered before 32 weeks, we found that the sensitivity of NICE was 55% while O'Gorman et al 12 reported only 41%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Moreover, to adjust for the autocorrelation caused by repeat pregnancies from the same individuals, 2 new data subsets excluding repeat pregnancies were reanalyzed with all the potential variables and found almost no differences in the selected variables, suggesting that the model was robust even when repeat pregnancies were included (see Supplementary Table 5, available on the Arthritis Care & Research website at http://onlin elibr ary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.24265/ abstract). Our preeclampsia predictors were consistent with those in other studies (5,25,32,36,50) (including disease flares, renal disorders, and hypocomplementemia); however, they were not the major predictors of preeclampsia in pregnant patients with SLE.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…MAP measurement in the first trimester has been shown to be effective in many predictive studies on preeclampsia, whether alone or in combination with ultrasound or biomarkers (15,(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). In a retrospective analysis of the general population, a MAP ≥88 mm Hg predicted preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 0.78 and a specificity of 0.63, without previous medical history considered (30).The detection rate of preeclampsia using MAP increased from 43% to 67% when MAP was added to the maternal characteristics (34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the potential clinical benefits of targeting nulliparous women for pre-eclampsia prevention, most validation studies of risk assessment tools do not report performance separately for nulliparous women [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Two pre-eclampsia risk prediction models based on routinely collected maternal factors identified from our previous systematic review [13] have been assessed in nulliparous women [6,31].…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, its predictive performance has not yet been adequately validated in Australian women. Internationally, validation studies of the NICE approach have reported poor to moderate predictive performance [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. One Australian validation study has reported good sensitivity for prediction of pre-eclampsia requiring delivery before 37 weeks, but was limited by a small sample size (n = 543, sensitivity 75% (95% confidence interval (CI) 35-97%), false positive rate 22%) [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%