First-trimester prediction of pre-eclampsia: external validity of algorithms in a prospectively enrolled cohort

Oliveira, Natacha; Magder, Laurence S.; Blitzer, Miriam G.; Baschat, A. A.

doi:10.1002/uog.13435

Cited by 84 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding external validity, we found conflicting results. Some models performed at a similar level when applied in a different clinical setting from the construction cohort, whereas others underperformed. Oliveira et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Validation of a first-trimester screening model for pre-eclampsia in an unselected population

Scazzocchio

Crovetto

Triunfo

et al. 2017

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Validation of a first-trimester screening model for pre-eclampsia in an unselected population

Scazzocchio

Crovetto

Triunfo

et al. 2017

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although several prediction models for PE have been reported to date, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] they require data from examinations (blood test and/or Doppler velocimetry) and complex questionnaires on maternal background. The present study was conducted in order to determine predictive risk factors for GH and PE in Japan, develop a nomogram for calculating estimated risk ratios of GH and PE, and identify high-risk women in prenatal visits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prenatal risk assessment of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia using clinical information

Shiozaki

Tanaka

Ito

et al. 2016

Hypertens Res Pregnancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To assess the risks of developing gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE) during pregnancy based on clinical information. ). The estimated risk ratios predicted subsequent GH and PE with sensitivities of 61.5% and 67.0%, and specificities of 67.0% and 64.4%, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for GH and PE were 0.70 and 0.68, respectively. Conclusions:The estimated risk ratios determined in this study may identify women at high risk of GH or PE before disease onset.

show abstract

“…Using different prediction rules, the TPF varies from 18–31% for a FPR of 10% [30,38]. In our study, the AUC was significantly lower in primiparous reinforcing the necessity to identify new risk-factors in this population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPreeclampsia (PE) is associated with a high risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. However, there is no consensus in the definition of high-risk women.AimTo question current definition of high PE risk and propose a definition that considers individual heterogeneity to improves risk classification.MethodsA stratified analysis by parity was conducted using the Swedish Birth Register between 2002–2010 including 626.600 pregnancies. The discriminatory accuracy (DA) of traditional definitions of high-risk women was compared with a new definition based on 1) specific combinations of individual variables and 2) a centile cut-off of the probability of PE predicted by a multiple logistic regression model.ResultsNone of the classical risk-factors alone reached an acceptable DA. In multiparous, any combination of a risk-factor with previous PE or HBP reached a +LR>10. The combination of obesity and multiple pregnancy reached a good DA particularly in the presence of previous preeclampsia (positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = 26.5 or chronic hypertension (HBP) LR+ = 40.5. In primiparous, a LR+>15 was observed in multiple pregnancies with the simultaneous presence of obesity and diabetes mellitus or with HBP. Predicted probabilities above 97 centile in multiparous and 99 centile in primiparous provided high (LR+ = 12.5), and moderate (LR+ = 5.85), respectively. No one risk factor alone or in combination provided a LR- sufficiently low to rule-out the disease.ConclusionsIn preeclampsia prediction the combination of specific risk factors provided a better discriminatory accuracy than traditional single risk approach. Our results contribute to a more personalized risk estimation of preeclampsia.

show abstract

First-trimester prediction of pre-eclampsia: external validity of algorithms in a prospectively enrolled cohort

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the performance of published first-trimester prediction algorithms for pre-eclampsia (PE) in a prospectively enrolled cohort of women. Method

Cited by 84 publications

References 23 publications

Validation of a first-trimester screening model for pre-eclampsia in an unselected population

Validation of a first-trimester screening model for pre-eclampsia in an unselected population

Prenatal risk assessment of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia using clinical information

Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About