Literature DB >> 10533005

History and physical examination to estimate the risk of ectopic pregnancy: validation of a clinical prediction model.

R G Buckley1, K J King, J D Disney, J D Gorman, J H Klausen.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively validate a clinical prediction model for ectopic pregnancy (EP).
METHODS: Prospective cohort with 14-month derivation and 12-month validation phases. All hemodynamically stable, first-trimester patients with abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding who presented to a military teaching hospital emergency department underwent follow-up until an outcome of intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or EP was established. Patients were separated into the high-risk group, defined as having either peritoneal signs or definite cervical motion tenderness; intermediate-risk group, defined as the presence of pain or tenderness, other than midline cramping, plus absence of fetal heart tones, and absence of tissue visible at the cervical os; and low-risk group (neither high- nor intermediate-risk) using recursive partitioning.
RESULTS: Summarizing both phases, 915 patients had 845 (93%) IUPs and 70 (7.6%) EPs, with 18 (1.9%) lost to follow-up. The clinical prediction model classified 75 (8.2%) into the high-risk group (sensitivity 31%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21% to 44%; specificity 94%, 95% CI 92% to 95%); and 644 (70%) in the intermediate-risk group (sensitivity 98%, 95% CI 89% to 100%; specificity 25%, 95% CI 22% to 29%). The remaining 196 (21%) patients who met neither high-risk nor intermediate-risk criteria were classified into the low-risk group. On the basis of EP prevalence of 7.7%, the risk of EP was less than 1% (95% CI 0% to 3%) for the low-risk group, 7% (95% CI 5% to 10%) for the intermediate-risk group, and 29% (95% CI 19% to 41%) for the high-risk group.
CONCLUSION: This clinical prediction model is useful for estimating the risk of EP in first-trimester patients, particularly when ancillary testing is equivocal or not readily available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10533005     DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70160-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  9 in total

1.  Diagnosing suspected ectopic pregnancy. Hcg monitoring and transvaginal ultrasound lead the way.

Authors:  W M Ankum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-18

2.  Threatened miscarriage in general practice: diagnostic value of history taking and physical examination.

Authors:  Margreet Wieringa-de Waard; Gouke J Bonsel; Willem M Ankum; Jeroen Vos; Patrick J E Bindels
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Prediction of outcome in women with symptomatic first-trimester pregnancy: focus on intrauterine rather than ectopic gestation.

Authors:  Bruno C Casanova; Mary D Sammel; Jesse Chittams; Kelly Timbers; Jennifer L Kulp; Kurt T Barnhart
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care.

Authors:  Jeremiah D Schuur; Christopher W Baugh; Erik P Hess; Joshua A Hilton; Jesse M Pines; Brent R Asplin
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 5.  Diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Heather Murray; Hanadi Baakdah; Trevor Bardell; Togas Tulandi
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Non-invasive tools for the diagnosis of potentially life-threatening gynaecological emergencies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Viola Polena; Cyrille Huchon; Catalina Varas Ramos; Roman Rouzier; Alexandre Dumont; Arnaud Fauconnier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Optimal Combination of Non-Invasive Tools for the Early Detection of Potentially Life-Threatening Emergencies in Gynecology.

Authors:  Catalina Varas; Marion Ravit; Camille Mimoun; Pierre Panel; Cyrille Huchon; Arnaud Fauconnier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Predictive analytical model for ectopic pregnancy diagnosis: Statistics vs. machine learning.

Authors:  Ploywarong Rueangket; Kristsanamon Rittiluechai; Akara Prayote
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-09-23

9.  Comparison of Four Methods of Treating Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Zeynep Ozturk Inal; Hasan Ali Inal
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.915

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.