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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Merida Rodriguez-Lopez, Philippe Wagner, Raquel Perez-Vicente, Fatima Crispi, Juan Merlo
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