AIM: A prediction rule for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) could be helpful in early detection and increased efficiency of screening. A prediction rule by means of a clinical scoring system is available, but has never been validated externally. The aim of this study was to validate the scoring system. METHODS: We used data from a prospective cohort study. Women were assigned a score based on age, BMI and ethnicity. Performance of the scoring system was evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration (agreement between clinical score and observed probability of GDM). We compared the efficiency of a screening strategy derived from the scoring system with conventional screening. RESULTS: We studied 1266 women. Forty-seven women had GDM (3.7%). The scoring system discriminated moderately (area under the curve=0.64 (95% CI 0.56-0.72)). Calibration was limited (chi(2)=8.89, p=0.06). The screening strategy derived from the scoring system reduced the number of women needed to be screened with 25% for a comparable detection rate to universal screening. CONCLUSION: Despite moderate discriminative capacity and calibration of the scoring system, the screening strategy based on the scoring system appears clinically useful. There is need for better prediction models for GDM.
AIM: A prediction rule for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) could be helpful in early detection and increased efficiency of screening. A prediction rule by means of a clinical scoring system is available, but has never been validated externally. The aim of this study was to validate the scoring system. METHODS: We used data from a prospective cohort study. Women were assigned a score based on age, BMI and ethnicity. Performance of the scoring system was evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration (agreement between clinical score and observed probability of GDM). We compared the efficiency of a screening strategy derived from the scoring system with conventional screening. RESULTS: We studied 1266 women. Forty-seven women had GDM (3.7%). The scoring system discriminated moderately (area under the curve=0.64 (95% CI 0.56-0.72)). Calibration was limited (chi(2)=8.89, p=0.06). The screening strategy derived from the scoring system reduced the number of women needed to be screened with 25% for a comparable detection rate to universal screening. CONCLUSION: Despite moderate discriminative capacity and calibration of the scoring system, the screening strategy based on the scoring system appears clinically useful. There is need for better prediction models for GDM.
Authors: Sharmini Selvarajah; Alan Yean Yip Fong; Gunavathy Selvaraj; Jamaiyah Haniff; Cuno S P M Uiterwaal; Michiel L Bots Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Diane Farrar; Mark Simmonds; Maria Bryant; Debbie A Lawlor; Fidelma Dunne; Derek Tuffnell; Trevor A Sheldon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marije Lamain-de Ruiter; Anneke Kwee; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Arie Franx; Karel G M Moons; Maria P H Koster Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2017-02-08
Authors: Linda Jacqueline Elisabeth Meertens; Hubertina Cj Scheepers; Raymond G De Vries; Carmen D Dirksen; Irene Korstjens; Antonius Lm Mulder; Marianne J Nieuwenhuijze; Jan G Nijhuis; Marc Ea Spaanderman; Luc Jm Smits Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-10-26
Authors: F van Hoorn; Mph Koster; C A Naaktgeboren; F Groenendaal; A Kwee; M Lamain-de Ruiter; A Franx; M N Bekker Journal: BJOG Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.531