N Oliveira1, L S Magder, M G Blitzer, A A Baschat. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of published first-trimester prediction algorithms for pre-eclampsia (PE) in a prospectively enrolled cohort of women. METHOD: A MEDLINE search identified first-trimester screening-prediction algorithms for early-onset (requiring delivery < 34 weeks) and late-onset (requiring delivery ≥ 34 weeks) PE. Maternal variables, ultrasound parameters and biomarkers were determined prospectively in singleton pregnancies enrolled between 9 and 14 weeks. Prediction algorithms were applied to this population to calculate predicted probabilities for PE. The performance of the prediction algorithms was compared with that in the original publication and evaluated for factors explaining differences in prediction. RESULTS: Six early and two late PE prediction algorithms were applicable to 871-2962 women, depending on the variables required. The prevalence of early PE was 1.0-1.2% and of late PE was 4.1-5.0% in these patient subsets. One early PE prediction algorithm performed better than in the original publication (80% detection rate (DR) of early PE for 10% false-positive rate (FPR)); the remaining five prediction algorithms underperformed (29-53% DR). Prediction algorithms for late PE also underperformed (18-31% DR, 10% FPR). Applying the screening cut-offs based on the highest Youden index probability scores correctly detected 40-80% of women developing early PE and 71-82% who developed late PE. Exclusion of patients on first-trimester aspirin resulted in DRs of 40-83% and 65-82% for early and late PE, respectively. CONCLUSION: First-trimester prediction algorithms for PE share a high negative predictive value if applied to an external population but underperform in their ability to correctly identify women who develop PE. Further research is required to determine the factors responsible for the suboptimal external validity.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of published first-trimester prediction algorithms for pre-eclampsia (PE) in a prospectively enrolled cohort of women. METHOD: A MEDLINE search identified first-trimester screening-prediction algorithms for early-onset (requiring delivery < 34 weeks) and late-onset (requiring delivery ≥ 34 weeks) PE. Maternal variables, ultrasound parameters and biomarkers were determined prospectively in singleton pregnancies enrolled between 9 and 14 weeks. Prediction algorithms were applied to this population to calculate predicted probabilities for PE. The performance of the prediction algorithms was compared with that in the original publication and evaluated for factors explaining differences in prediction. RESULTS: Six early and two late PE prediction algorithms were applicable to 871-2962 women, depending on the variables required. The prevalence of early PE was 1.0-1.2% and of late PE was 4.1-5.0% in these patient subsets. One early PE prediction algorithm performed better than in the original publication (80% detection rate (DR) of early PE for 10% false-positive rate (FPR)); the remaining five prediction algorithms underperformed (29-53% DR). Prediction algorithms for late PE also underperformed (18-31% DR, 10% FPR). Applying the screening cut-offs based on the highest Youden index probability scores correctly detected 40-80% of women developing early PE and 71-82% who developed late PE. Exclusion of patients on first-trimester aspirin resulted in DRs of 40-83% and 65-82% for early and late PE, respectively. CONCLUSION: First-trimester prediction algorithms for PE share a high negative predictive value if applied to an external population but underperform in their ability to correctly identify women who develop PE. Further research is required to determine the factors responsible for the suboptimal external validity.
Authors: Liona C Poon; Andrew Shennan; Jonathan A Hyett; Anil Kapur; Eran Hadar; Hema Divakar; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Fabricio da Silva Costa; Peter von Dadelszen; Harold David McIntyre; Anne B Kihara; Gian Carlo Di Renzo; Roberto Romero; Mary D'Alton; Vincenzo Berghella; Kypros H Nicolaides; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.561
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: Leandro De Oliveira; Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias; Arundhanthi Jeyabalan; Beth Payne; Christopher W Redman; Laura Magee; Lucilla Poston; Lucy Chappell; Paul Seed; Peter von Dadelszen; James Michael Roberts Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.899
Authors: Ignacio Herraiz; Elisa Simón; Paula Isabel Gómez-Arriaga; José Manuel Martínez-Moratalla; Antonio García-Burguillo; Elena Ana López Jiménez; Alberto Galindo Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 5.923