We have located links that may give you full text access.
Discriminatory Accuracy of Preeclampsia Risk Factors in Primary Care.
Archives of Medical Research 2018 May
BACKGROUND: Although it is common to use risk factors in the screening for preeclampsia, they do not always accurately identify patients who truly have this condition.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the discriminatory accuracy of known preeclampsia risk factors, both individually and in combination.
METHODS: We studied patients undergoing prenatal care who were diagnosed with preeclampsia or eclampsia (n = 160 cases) in primary care and those who were not (n = 430 controls). Data on history of preeclampsia, type 2 diabetes, chronic hypertension, multiple gestation, first pregnancy, pregnancy interval ≥10 years, overweight/obesity, mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥80 mmHg, and age (<20 years and ≥40 years) were obtained using a dichotomous scale. Discriminatory accuracy indicators were true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve; stratified by parity. The case-control status was the reference standard.
RESULTS: Certain combinations performed better than individual factors, independent of parity status. Among multiparous women, MAP ≥80 mmHg together with previous preeclampsia and overweight/obesity accumulated the greatest number of discriminatory accuracy indicators, with acceptable values: TP, 72.2%; FP, 1.5%; LR+, 48.4; LR-, 0.3; DOR, 171.6; and AUROC, 0.85.
CONCLUSIONS: Discriminatory accuracy was low for almost all individual preeclampsia risk factors. However, the accuracy improved after some factors were combined. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the discriminatory accuracy of preeclampsia risk factors used for screening high-risk pregnancies in primary care in Mexico.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the discriminatory accuracy of known preeclampsia risk factors, both individually and in combination.
METHODS: We studied patients undergoing prenatal care who were diagnosed with preeclampsia or eclampsia (n = 160 cases) in primary care and those who were not (n = 430 controls). Data on history of preeclampsia, type 2 diabetes, chronic hypertension, multiple gestation, first pregnancy, pregnancy interval ≥10 years, overweight/obesity, mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥80 mmHg, and age (<20 years and ≥40 years) were obtained using a dichotomous scale. Discriminatory accuracy indicators were true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve; stratified by parity. The case-control status was the reference standard.
RESULTS: Certain combinations performed better than individual factors, independent of parity status. Among multiparous women, MAP ≥80 mmHg together with previous preeclampsia and overweight/obesity accumulated the greatest number of discriminatory accuracy indicators, with acceptable values: TP, 72.2%; FP, 1.5%; LR+, 48.4; LR-, 0.3; DOR, 171.6; and AUROC, 0.85.
CONCLUSIONS: Discriminatory accuracy was low for almost all individual preeclampsia risk factors. However, the accuracy improved after some factors were combined. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the discriminatory accuracy of preeclampsia risk factors used for screening high-risk pregnancies in primary care in Mexico.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app