OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of body mass index (BMI) (pre-pregnancy or at booking) in predicting pre-eclampsia and to explore its potential for clinical application. DESIGN: Systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. SETTING: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDION, manual searching of reference lists of review articles and eligible primary articles, and contact with experts. POPULATION: Pregnant women at any level of risk in any healthcare setting. METHODS: Reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and accuracy. No language restrictions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled sensitivities and specificities (95% CI), a summary receiver operating characteristic curve, and corresponding likelihood ratios (LRs). The potential value of BMI was assessed by combining its predictive capacity for different prevalences of pre-eclampsia and the therapeutic effectiveness (relative risk 0.90) of aspirin. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies, testing 1,699,073 pregnant women (60,584 women with pre-eclampsia), met the selection criteria. The median incidence of pre-eclampsia was 3.9% (interquartile range 1.4-6.8). The area under the curve was 0.64 with 93% of heterogeneity explained by threshold differences. Pooled estimates (95% CI) for all studies with a BMI > or = 25 were 47% (33-61) for sensitivity and 73% (64-83) for specificity; and 21% (12-31) and 92% (89-95) for a BMI > or = 35. Corresponding LRs (95% CI) were 1.7 (0.3-11.9) for BMI > or = 25 and 0.73 (0.22-2.45) for BMI < 25, and 2.7 (1.0-7.3) for BMI > or = 35 and 0.86 (0.68-1.07) for BMI < 35. The number needed to treat with aspirin to prevent one case of pre-eclampsia ranges from 714 (no testing, low-risk women) to 37 (BMI > or = 35, high-risk women). CONCLUSIONS: BMI appears to be a fairly weak predictor for pre-eclampsia. Although BMI is virtually free of cost, noninvasive, and ubiquitously available, its usefulness as a stand-alone test for risk stratification must await formal cost-utility analysis. The findings of this review may serve as input for such analyses.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of body mass index (BMI) (pre-pregnancy or at booking) in predicting pre-eclampsia and to explore its potential for clinical application. DESIGN: Systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. SETTING: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDION, manual searching of reference lists of review articles and eligible primary articles, and contact with experts. POPULATION: Pregnant women at any level of risk in any healthcare setting. METHODS: Reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and accuracy. No language restrictions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled sensitivities and specificities (95% CI), a summary receiver operating characteristic curve, and corresponding likelihood ratios (LRs). The potential value of BMI was assessed by combining its predictive capacity for different prevalences of pre-eclampsia and the therapeutic effectiveness (relative risk 0.90) of aspirin. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies, testing 1,699,073 pregnant women (60,584 women with pre-eclampsia), met the selection criteria. The median incidence of pre-eclampsia was 3.9% (interquartile range 1.4-6.8). The area under the curve was 0.64 with 93% of heterogeneity explained by threshold differences. Pooled estimates (95% CI) for all studies with a BMI > or = 25 were 47% (33-61) for sensitivity and 73% (64-83) for specificity; and 21% (12-31) and 92% (89-95) for a BMI > or = 35. Corresponding LRs (95% CI) were 1.7 (0.3-11.9) for BMI > or = 25 and 0.73 (0.22-2.45) for BMI < 25, and 2.7 (1.0-7.3) for BMI > or = 35 and 0.86 (0.68-1.07) for BMI < 35. The number needed to treat with aspirin to prevent one case of pre-eclampsia ranges from 714 (no testing, low-risk women) to 37 (BMI > or = 35, high-risk women). CONCLUSIONS: BMI appears to be a fairly weak predictor for pre-eclampsia. Although BMI is virtually free of cost, noninvasive, and ubiquitously available, its usefulness as a stand-alone test for risk stratification must await formal cost-utility analysis. The findings of this review may serve as input for such analyses.
Authors: John Allotey; Kym Ie Snell; Melanie Smuk; Richard Hooper; Claire L Chan; Asif Ahmed; Lucy C Chappell; Peter von Dadelszen; Julie Dodds; Marcus Green; Louise Kenny; Asma Khalil; Khalid S Khan; Ben W Mol; Jenny Myers; Lucilla Poston; Basky Thilaganathan; Anne C Staff; Gordon Cs Smith; Wessel Ganzevoort; Hannele Laivuori; Anthony O Odibo; Javier A Ramírez; John Kingdom; George Daskalakis; Diane Farrar; Ahmet A Baschat; Paul T Seed; Federico Prefumo; Fabricio da Silva Costa; Henk Groen; Francois Audibert; Jacques Masse; Ragnhild B Skråstad; Kjell Å Salvesen; Camilla Haavaldsen; Chie Nagata; Alice R Rumbold; Seppo Heinonen; Lisa M Askie; Luc Jm Smits; Christina A Vinter; Per M Magnus; Kajantie Eero; Pia M Villa; Anne K Jenum; Louise B Andersen; Jane E Norman; Akihide Ohkuchi; Anne Eskild; Sohinee Bhattacharya; Fionnuala M McAuliffe; Alberto Galindo; Ignacio Herraiz; Lionel Carbillon; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch; SeonAe Yeo; Helena J Teede; Joyce L Browne; Karel Gm Moons; Richard D Riley; Shakila Thangaratinam Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Robyn A North; Lesley M E McCowan; Gustaaf A Dekker; Lucilla Poston; Eliza H Y Chan; Alistair W Stewart; Michael A Black; Rennae S Taylor; James J Walker; Philip N Baker; Louise C Kenny Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-04-07
Authors: Feriha Fatima Khidri; Yar Muhammad Waryah; Faiza Kamran Ali; Hina Shaikh; Ikram Din Ujjan; Ali Muhammad Waryah Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Jorg Haasenritter; Damaris Stanze; Grit Widera; Christian Wilimzig; Maren Abu Hani; Andreas C Sonnichsen; Stefan Bosner; Justine Rochon; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: Chun Ye; Yan Ruan; Liying Zou; Guanghui Li; Changdong Li; Yi Chen; Chaoxia Jia; Ian L Megson; Jun Wei; Weiyuan Zhang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240