3 years ago

Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening

Philippe Wagner, Fatima Crispi, Juan Merlo, Merida Rodriguez-Lopez, Raquel Perez-Vicente

by Merida Rodriguez-Lopez, Philippe Wagner, Raquel Perez-Vicente, Fatima Crispi, Juan Merlo

Background

Preeclampsia (PE) is associated with a high risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. However, there is no consensus in the definition of high-risk women.

Aim

To question current definition of high PE risk and propose a definition that considers individual heterogeneity to improves risk classification.

Methods

A stratified analysis by parity was conducted using the Swedish Birth Register between 2002–2010 including 626.600 pregnancies. The discriminatory accuracy (DA) of traditional definitions of high-risk women was compared with a new definition based on 1) specific combinations of individual variables and 2) a centile cut-off of the probability of PE predicted by a multiple logistic regression model.

Results

None of the classical risk-factors alone reached an acceptable DA. In multiparous, any combination of a risk-factor with previous PE or HBP reached a +LR>10. The combination of obesity and multiple pregnancy reached a good DA particularly in the presence of previous preeclampsia (positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = 26.5 or chronic hypertension (HBP) LR+ = 40.5. In primiparous, a LR+>15 was observed in multiple pregnancies with the simultaneous presence of obesity and diabetes mellitus or with HBP. Predicted probabilities above 97 centile in multiparous and 99 centile in primiparous provided high (LR+ = 12.5), and moderate (LR+ = 5.85), respectively. No one risk factor alone or in combination provided a LR- sufficiently low to rule-out the disease.

Conclusions

In preeclampsia prediction the combination of specific risk factors provided a better discriminatory accuracy than traditional single risk approach. Our results contribute to a more personalized risk estimation of preeclampsia.

Publisher URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178528

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.