TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of two “a priori” risk assessment algorithms for preeclampsia in Italy
T2 - a prospective multicenter study
AU - Di Martino, Daniela
AU - Masturzo, Bianca
AU - Paracchini, Sara
AU - Bracco, Benedetta
AU - Cavoretto, Paolo
AU - Prefumo, Federico
AU - Germano, Chiara
AU - Morano, Danila
AU - Girlando, Flavia
AU - Giorgione, Veronica
AU - Parpinel, Giulia
AU - Cariello, Luisa
AU - Fusè, Federica
AU - Candiani, Massimo
AU - Todros, Tullia
AU - Rizzo, Nicola
AU - Farina, Antonio
PY - 2019/6/1
Y1 - 2019/6/1
N2 - Purpose: To compare the performance of the algorithms proposed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation in 2012 and BCNatal in 2013 in an Italian population. Methods: A multicentric prospective study was carried out which included pregnancies at 11–13 weeks’ gestation from Jan 2014 through May 2017. Two previously published algorithms were used for the calculation of the “a priori” risk of preeclampsia (based on risk factors from medical history) in each individual. Results: In a study population of 11,632 cases, 67 (0.6%) developed early preeclampsia and 211 (1.8%) developed late preeclampsia. The detection rates (95% CI) for early and late preeclampsia were 58.2% (45.5–70.2) vs. 41.8% (29.6–54.5) (p value < 0.05) and 44.1% (37.3–51.1) vs. 38% (31.3–44.8) (p value < 0.05) for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively (at a 10% false positive rate). The associated risk was 1:226 and 1:198 (p value ns) for early PE, and 1:17 and 1:24 (p value ns) for late PE for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively. Conclusions: The Fetal Medicine Foundation screening for preeclampsia at 11–13 weeks’ gestation scored the highest detection rate for both early and late PE. At a fixed 10% false positive rate, the estimated “a priori” risks of both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the BCNatal algorithms in an Italian population were quite similar, and both were reliable and consistent.
AB - Purpose: To compare the performance of the algorithms proposed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation in 2012 and BCNatal in 2013 in an Italian population. Methods: A multicentric prospective study was carried out which included pregnancies at 11–13 weeks’ gestation from Jan 2014 through May 2017. Two previously published algorithms were used for the calculation of the “a priori” risk of preeclampsia (based on risk factors from medical history) in each individual. Results: In a study population of 11,632 cases, 67 (0.6%) developed early preeclampsia and 211 (1.8%) developed late preeclampsia. The detection rates (95% CI) for early and late preeclampsia were 58.2% (45.5–70.2) vs. 41.8% (29.6–54.5) (p value < 0.05) and 44.1% (37.3–51.1) vs. 38% (31.3–44.8) (p value < 0.05) for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively (at a 10% false positive rate). The associated risk was 1:226 and 1:198 (p value ns) for early PE, and 1:17 and 1:24 (p value ns) for late PE for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively. Conclusions: The Fetal Medicine Foundation screening for preeclampsia at 11–13 weeks’ gestation scored the highest detection rate for both early and late PE. At a fixed 10% false positive rate, the estimated “a priori” risks of both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the BCNatal algorithms in an Italian population were quite similar, and both were reliable and consistent.
KW - A priori risk
KW - Detection rate
KW - ROC curves
KW - Screening for preeclampsia
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064517664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064517664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00404-019-05146-4
DO - 10.1007/s00404-019-05146-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 30953193
AN - SCOPUS:85064517664
VL - 299
SP - 1587
EP - 1596
JO - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
JF - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
SN - 0932-0067
IS - 6
ER -