Annelien C De Kat1, Jane Hirst2, Mark Woodward3, Stephen Kennedy4, Sanne A Peters3. 1. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford Le Gros Clark Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QX, UK; Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: a.c.dekat@umcutrecht.nl. 2. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford Le Gros Clark Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QX, UK; Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford Le Gros Clark Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QX, UK; Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is a disease specific to pregnancy that can cause severe maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality. Early identification of women at higher risk for preeclampsia could potentially aid early prevention and treatment. Although a plethora of preeclampsia prediction models have been developed in recent years, individualised prediction of preeclampsia is rarely used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview of studies on preeclampsia prediction. STUDY DESIGN: Relevant research papers were identified through a MEDLINE search up to 1 January 2017. Prognostic studies on the prediction of preeclampsia or preeclampsia-related disorders were included. Quality screening was performed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Sixty-eight prediction models from 70 studies with 425,125 participants were selected for further review. The number of participants varied and the gestational age at prediction varied widely across studies. The most frequently used predictors were medical history, body mass index, blood pressure, parity, uterine artery pulsatility index, and maternal age. The type of predictor (maternal characteristics, ultrasound markers and/or biomarkers) was not clearly associated with model discrimination. Few prediction studies were internally (4%) or externally (6%) validated. CONCLUSIONS: To date, multiple and widely varying models for preeclampsia prediction have been developed, some yielding promising results. The high degree of between-study heterogeneity impedes selection of the best model, or an aggregated analysis of prognostic models. Before multivariable preeclampsia prediction can be clinically implemented universally, further validation and calibration of well-performing prediction models is needed.
BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is a disease specific to pregnancy that can cause severe maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality. Early identification of women at higher risk for preeclampsia could potentially aid early prevention and treatment. Although a plethora of preeclampsia prediction models have been developed in recent years, individualised prediction of preeclampsia is rarely used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview of studies on preeclampsia prediction. STUDY DESIGN: Relevant research papers were identified through a MEDLINE search up to 1 January 2017. Prognostic studies on the prediction of preeclampsia or preeclampsia-related disorders were included. Quality screening was performed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Sixty-eight prediction models from 70 studies with 425,125 participants were selected for further review. The number of participants varied and the gestational age at prediction varied widely across studies. The most frequently used predictors were medical history, body mass index, blood pressure, parity, uterine artery pulsatility index, and maternal age. The type of predictor (maternal characteristics, ultrasound markers and/or biomarkers) was not clearly associated with model discrimination. Few prediction studies were internally (4%) or externally (6%) validated. CONCLUSIONS: To date, multiple and widely varying models for preeclampsia prediction have been developed, some yielding promising results. The high degree of between-study heterogeneity impedes selection of the best model, or an aggregated analysis of prognostic models. Before multivariable preeclampsia prediction can be clinically implemented universally, further validation and calibration of well-performing prediction models is needed.
Authors: Jan S Erkamp; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Liesbeth Duijts; Irwin K M Reiss; Annemarie G M G J Mulders; Eric A P Steegers; Romy Gaillard Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.050