Biochemical predictors of preterm labor: fetal fibronectin and salivary estriol
Abstract
Preterm birth is a major complication of pregnancy and remains a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Improvements in the authors' understanding of the pathophysiology of preterm labor have led to the development of novel diagnostic tools of use to identify women at greatest risk for preterm birth. Currently two FDA-approved biochemical tests are available in the United States: (1) fetal fibronectin and (2) salivary estriol. The presence of a positive fetal fibronectin test in the midtrimester of pregnancy is strongly associated with early spontaneous preterm birth. In contrast, a positive salivary estriol test is associated with late preterm birth, thus limiting its clinical use. Both tests have low test sensitivity and are currently used clinically for their negative predictive values. That is, women who screen negative are at very low risk for preterm birth and, thus, no interventions are indicated to prevent preterm birth. Women with a positive test are at increased risk and would be candidates for intervention. One of the main limitations of fetal fibronectin and salivary estriol, and an array of other proposed markers, is the fact that while these markers may aid in identification of women at increased risk for preterm birth, the authors currently have no clearly effective obstetric interventions for preterm-birth prevention in these high-risk women. Use of tocolytics, antimicrobials, or progesterone therapy currently has limited or unproven benefit in the management of women deemed at increased risk using these markers. Thus, until effective targeted obstetric interventions are available, the use of biochemical markers to identify women at increase risk for preterm birth remains largely research tools.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Salivary oestriol concentration predicts late preterm birth quite well, but is not especially useful for predicting earlier preterm births.
“Salivary oestriol concentration predicts late preterm birth quite well, but is not especially useful for the prediction of earlier preterm births.128”
From Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth (2008) · cites this paper as [128]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 124 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Ramsey, P. S., & Andrews, W. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ramsey, Patrick S
- ORCID
- Ramsey, Patrick S
- Venue
- Clinics in Perinatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 701-733
- ISSN
- 0095-5108 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140245346
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 124
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinics in Perinatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
- Keywords
- preterm birth, preterm labor, fetal fibronectin, biochemical markers, preterm birth prediction, preterm birth prevention, tocolysis, progesterone therapy, antimicrobial agents, risk stratification
- MeSH terms
- Estriol, Female, Fibronectins, Gestational Age, Glycoproteins, Humans, Obstetric Labor, Premature, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Saliva, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers
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