Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening.
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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5444844?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-56626ea3cdfd42199b79be2e61161faf |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-56626ea3cdfd42199b79be2e61161faf2020-11-25T02:35:18ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01125e017852810.1371/journal.pone.0178528Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening.Merida Rodriguez-LopezPhilippe WagnerRaquel Perez-VicenteFatima CrispiJuan MerloBACKGROUND: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.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5444844?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Merida Rodriguez-Lopez Philippe Wagner Raquel Perez-Vicente Fatima Crispi Juan Merlo |
spellingShingle |
Merida Rodriguez-Lopez Philippe Wagner Raquel Perez-Vicente Fatima Crispi Juan Merlo Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Merida Rodriguez-Lopez Philippe Wagner Raquel Perez-Vicente Fatima Crispi Juan Merlo |
author_sort |
Merida Rodriguez-Lopez |
title |
Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
title_short |
Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
title_full |
Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
title_fullStr |
Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
title_sort |
revisiting the discriminatory accuracy of traditional risk factors in preeclampsia screening. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
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. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5444844?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT meridarodriguezlopez revisitingthediscriminatoryaccuracyoftraditionalriskfactorsinpreeclampsiascreening AT philippewagner revisitingthediscriminatoryaccuracyoftraditionalriskfactorsinpreeclampsiascreening AT raquelperezvicente revisitingthediscriminatoryaccuracyoftraditionalriskfactorsinpreeclampsiascreening AT fatimacrispi revisitingthediscriminatoryaccuracyoftraditionalriskfactorsinpreeclampsiascreening AT juanmerlo revisitingthediscriminatoryaccuracyoftraditionalriskfactorsinpreeclampsiascreening |
_version_ |
1724804184603099136 |