4.4 Article

Prediction of obstetrical risk using maternal serum markers and clinical risk factors

期刊

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 172-179

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4281

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MAH-115445]
  2. Child and Family Research Institute
  3. Chair in maternal, fetal, and infant health services research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [APR-126338]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveAbnormal maternal serum analytes (pregnancy associated plasma protein A, total human chorionic gonadotropin, alpha fetoprotein, Inhibin A, and unconjugated estriol) measured as part of aneuploidy screening programs have been associated with adverse obstetrical outcomes in euploid pregnancies. This study aimed to determine if their predictive ability could be enhanced with additional information on obstetrical history. MethodForty-five thousand two hundred eighty-seven women participated in the screening program and delivered euploid singleton infants between 2010 and 2012 in British Columbia, Canada. A split-sample design was used to develop and validate prognostic models for serious perinatal events (stillbirth, preterm birth <32weeks, or HELLP syndrome) and severe pre-eclampsia [pre-eclampsia with preterm birth <34weeks or small for gestational age <10th percentile] using logistic regression. ResultsThree thousand five hundred four women (7.7%) had at least one abnormal marker using standard cut-off values. The combination of serum markers and clinical risk factors improved the ability of statistical models to predict a serious perinatal event [area under the curve (AUC)=0.62] and severe pre-eclampsia (AUC=0.78) compared with serum markers or clinical risk factors alone. ConclusionsWhile detection rates are low, the combination of maternal serum markers and obstetrical history helps to identify a small subset of women at higher risk for serious perinatal events and severe pre-eclampsia. (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据