Prediction of subsequent miscarriage risk in women who present with a viable pregnancy at the first early pregnancy scan
Abstract
Objectives: To generate and evaluate a new prediction model for miscarriage in women who present with a viable intrauterine pregnancy ( IUP ) at the primary early pregnancy scan and to compare this new model to a previously published model. Materials and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from women presenting to the early pregnancy unit with a viable IUP between November 2006 and January 2013. More than 30 historical, clinical and ultrasonographic variables were recorded on a standardised datasheet at the first visit. Women were followed until the final outcome was known at the end of the first trimester: viable IUP or miscarriage. A new multinomial logistic regression model was developed retrospectively on training cases and tested prospectively on test cases. The performance of the new prediction model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic ( ROC ) curves and compared to a previously published model. After removing cases with missing values for the model of Oates, the area under the ROC curve ( AUC ) was also calculated for the new model and the Oates model. Results: A total of 1115 consecutive first‐trimester women presented to the early pregnancy unit. Eight hundred and sixty‐two women with a viable IUP at the first scan whose outcome was known at the end of the first trimester were included in the final analysis. Five hundred and sixty‐six women were included in the training set and 296 in the test set. 92.1% were viable and 7.9% had miscarried at the end of the first trimester. The most significant independent prognostic variables for the logistic regression model were as follows: maternal age, embryonic heart rate ( EHR ), logarithm [gestational sac ( GS ) volume/crown‐rump length ( CRL )], CRL and the presence or absence of clots per vagina ( PV ) at presentation. The performance of the new model compared with the Oates model gave an AUC of 0.870 vs 0.847 for the training set and 0.783 vs 0.744 for the test set. After removing cases with missing values for the model of Oates 2013, the performance of the new model compared to the Oates model gave an AUC of 0.887 vs 0.861 for the training set and 0.816 vs 0.734 for the test set ( P ‐value <0.04). Conclusions: We have developed a new prediction model which indicates the likelihood of miscarriage. In women who present with a viable IUP at the primary scan, advancing maternal age in the presence of clots PV increases the probability of subsequent miscarriage. Whereas, in women with a higher EHR in the presence of an increased GS volume/ CRL ratio, the likelihood of subsequent miscarriage is reduced. This new model outperforms the previously published model developed in our unit.
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?
Even after embryonic cardiac activity is detected, the subsequent rate of miscarriage remains 5.2 to 10.4%.
“Even after the embryonic cardiac activity is detected, the subsequent rate of miscarriage remains 5.2 to 10.4% [4, 5].”
Cites
Abdallah, Y., Daemen, A., Kirk, E., et al. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10109 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Association Between First-Trimester Vaginal Bleeding and Miscarriage
Hasan, R., Baird, D. D., Herring, A. H., Olshan, A. F., Funk, M. L. J., & Hartmann, K. E. (2009) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e3181b79796 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Prediction of ectopic pregnancy in women with a pregnancy of unknown location
Condous, G. S., Calster, B. V., Kirk, E., et al. (2007) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.4015 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationExpression of β-subunit of HCG genes during normal and failed pregnancy
Rull, K., & Laan, M. (2005) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dei261 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Ultrasonographic prediction of early miscarriage
Papaioannou, G. I., Syngelaki, A., Maiz, N., Ross, J. A., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2011) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/der130 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Mukri, F., Bourne, T., Bottomley, C., Schoeb, C., Kirk, E., & Papageorghiou, A. T. (2008) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01833.x · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Ultrasound prediction of risk of spontaneous miscarriage in live embryos from assisted conceptions
Choong, S., Rombauts, L. J. F., Ugoni, A. M., & Meagher, S. (2003) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.909 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Abdallah, Y., Daemen, A., Guha, S., et al. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10075 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
A model and scoring system to predict outcome of intrauterine pregnancies of uncertain viability
Bottomley, C., Belle, V. V., Pexsters, A., Papageorghiou, A. T., Mukri, F., Kirk, E., Huffel, S. V., Timmerman, D., & Bourne, T. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.9007 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Falco, P., Zagonari, S., Gabrielli, S., et al. (2002) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.2 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Casanova, B. C., Sammel, M. D., Chittams, J. L., et al. (2008) · Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.1089/jwh.2008.0896 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Guha, S., Belle, V. V., Bottomley, C., Preisler, J., Vathanan, V., Sayasneh, A., Stalder, C. M., Timmerman, D., & Bourne, T. (2013) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det342 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Oates, J. D., Casikar, I., Campain, A. E., et al. (2013) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/ajo.12046 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationLautmann, K., Cordina, M., Elson, J., et al. (2011) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/der287 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First‐trimester ultrasound features associated with subsequent miscarriage: A prospective study
Taylor, T. J., Quinton, A. E., de Vries, B. S., & Hyett, J. A. (2019) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/ajo.12944 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Yin, C., Chen, L., Yang, Z., Jia, S., Sun, X., Bai, Y., Han, F., & Yuan, Z. (2022) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-022-04936-0 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stamatopoulos, N., Lu, C., Casikar, I., Reid, S., Mongelli, M., Hardy, N., & Condous, G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Department of Computer Science Aberystwyth University Aberystwyth UK
- Aberystwyth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stamatopoulos, Nicole
- Venue
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-21
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 464-472
- ISSN
- 0004-8666 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-828X
- OpenAlex
- W2095778901
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- recurrent pregnancy loss, first-trimester miscarriage, gestational sac volume, crown-rump length, embryonic heart rate, maternal age, multinomial logistic regression, prediction model validation, area under the ROC curve, forecasting model comparison
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Spontaneous, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Maternal Age, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length, Risk Assessment, Young Adult
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