Cited by 119Pregnancy and preeclampsia studiesNeurological Complications and SyndromesMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 30-34 weeks’ gestation

Open access
Tsiakkas, Andreas, Saiid, Youssef, Wright, Alan, Wright, David, Nicolaides, Kypros H.·2016·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background Preeclampsia (PE) affects 2-3% of all pregnancies and is a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. We have proposed a 2-stage strategy for the identification of pregnancies at high risk of developing PE. The objective of the first stage, at 11-13 weeks' gestation, is a reduction in the prevalence of the disease through pharmacological intervention in the high-risk group. The objective of the second stage, during the second and/or third trimesters, is to improve perinatal outcome through close monitoring of the high-risk group for earlier diagnosis of the clinical signs of the disease and selection of the appropriate, time, place, and method of delivery.Objective The objective of the study was to examine the performance of screening for PE by a combination of maternal factors with early third-trimester biomarkers.Study design This was a cohort study and data were derived from consecutive women with singleton pregnancies attending for their routine hospital visit at 30-34 weeks' gestation in 3 maternity hospitals in England between March 2011 and December 2014. In the first phase of the study, only uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI) was measured and then measurement of mean arterial pressure (MAP) was added, and in the final phase, the serum concentration of placental growth factor (PLGF) was measured and then soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (SFLT) was added. We had data on UTPI, MAP, PLGF, and SFLT from 30,935, 29,042, 10,123, and 8,264 pregnancies, respectively. The Bayes theorem was used to combine the a priori risk from maternal factors with various combinations of biomarker multiple of the median values. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to estimate the performance of screening for PE requiring delivery at < 37 weeks' gestation (preterm-PE) and those delivering at ≥ 37 weeks (term-PE). The empirical performance was compared with model predictions.Results In pregnancies that developed PE, the values of MAP, UTPI, and SFLT were increased and PLGF was decreased. For all biomarkers the deviation from normal was greater for preterm-PE than term-PE, and therefore, the performance of screening was inversely related to the gestational age at which delivery become necessary for maternal and/or fetal indications. Combined screening by maternal factors, MAP, UTPI, PLGF, and SFLT predicted 98% (95% confidence interval, 88-100%) of preterm-PE and 49% (95% confidence interval, 42-57%) of term-PE, at a false-positive rate of 5%. These empirical detection rates are compatible with the respective model-based rates of 98% and 54%, but the latter were optimistically biased.Conclusion Combination of maternal factors and biomarkers in the early third trimester could predict nearly all cases of preterm-PE and half of those with term-PE, at 5% false-positive rate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.016

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsiakkas, A., Saiid, Y., Wright, A., Wright, D., & Nicolaides, K. H.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Nicolaides, Kypros H.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
215
Issue
1
Pages
87.e1-87.e17
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3022297674
Cited by
119
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1
FWCI
23.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Neurological Complications and Syndromes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
preeclampsia, preeclampsia screening, competing risk model, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, placental growth factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1, maternal risk factors, preterm preeclampsia, term preeclampsia, Bayes' theorem, screening performance, singleton pregnancy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Mass Screening, Pre-Eclampsia, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Models, Statistical, Biomarkers, Risk Assessment, Uterine Artery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review