First-Trimester Prediction Models Based on Maternal Characteristics for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview

Journal BJOG

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Oct 25

PMID 39449094

Authors

Jacintha C A van Eekhout

Ellis C Becking

Peter G Scheffer

Ioannis Koutsoliakos

Caroline J Bax

Lidewij Henneman

Mireille N Bekker

Ewoud Schuit

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Early risk stratification can facilitate timely interventions for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia (PE), small-for-gestational-age neonates (SGA), spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of first-trimester prediction models for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Search Strategy: The PubMed database was searched until 6 June 2024.

Selection Criteria: First-trimester prediction models based on maternal characteristics were included. Articles reporting on prediction models that comprised biochemical or ultrasound markers were excluded.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two authors identified articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using PROBAST.

Main Results: A total of 77 articles were included, comprising 30 developed models for PE, 15 for SGA, 11 for sPTB and 35 for GDM. Discriminatory performance in terms of median area under the curve (AUC) of these models was 0.75 [IQR 0.69-0.78] for PE models, 0.62 [0.60-0.71] for SGA models of nulliparous women, 0.74 [0.72-0.74] for SGA models of multiparous women, 0.65 [0.61-0.67] for sPTB models of nulliparous women, 0.71 [0.68-0.74] for sPTB models of multiparous women and 0.71 [0.67-0.76] for GDM models. Internal validation was performed in 40/91 (43.9%) of the models. Model calibration was reported in 21/91 (23.1%) models. External validation was performed a total of 96 times in 45/91 (49.5%) of the models. High risk of bias was observed in 94.5% of the developed models and in 58.3% of the external validations.

Conclusions: Multiple first-trimester prediction models are available, but almost all suffer from high risk of bias, and internal and external validations were often not performed. Hence, methodological quality improvement and assessment of the clinical utility are needed.

References

North R, McCowan L, Dekker G, Poston L, Chan E, Stewart A . Clinical risk prediction for pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women: development of model in international prospective cohort. BMJ. 2011; 342:d1875. PMC: 3072235. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d1875. View

van Leeuwen M, Opmeer B, Zweers E, van Ballegooie E, ter Brugge H, de Valk H . External validation of a clinical scoring system for the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009; 85(1):96-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.04.025. View

Al-Rubaie Z, Hudson H, Jenkins G, Mahmoud I, Ray J, Askie L . Prediction of pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women using routinely collected maternal characteristics: a model development and validation study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):23. PMC: 6945640. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2712-x. View

Beta J, Akolekar R, Ventura W, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides K . Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery from maternal factors, obstetric history and placental perfusion and function at 11-13 weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2011; 31(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1002/pd.2662. View

Meertens L, Scheepers H, van Kuijk S, Roeleveld N, Aardenburg R, van Dooren I . External validation and clinical utility of prognostic prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020; 99(7):891-900. PMC: 7317858. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13811. View

Iwama N, Obara T, Ishikuro M, Murakami K, Ueno F, Noda A . Risk scores for predicting small for gestational age infants in Japan: The TMM birthree cohort study. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):8921. PMC: 9135745. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12892-0. View

Schaefer K, Xiao W, Chen Q, He J, Lu J, Chan F . Prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in the Born in Guangzhou Cohort Study, China. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143(2):164-171. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12627. View

Seed P, Chappell L, Black M, Poppe K, Hwang Y, Kasabov N . Prediction of preeclampsia and delivery of small for gestational age babies based on a combination of clinical risk factors in high-risk women. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2010; 30(1):58-73. DOI: 10.3109/10641955.2010.486460. View

Tessema G, Haberg S, Pereira G, Regan A, Dunne J, Magnus M . Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study. PLoS Med. 2022; 19(11):e1004129. PMC: 9681073. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004129. View

10.

Boutin A, Gasse C, Demers S, Giguere Y, Tetu A, Bujold E . Maternal Characteristics for the Prediction of Preeclampsia in Nulliparous Women: The Great Obstetrical Syndromes (GOS) Study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017; 40(5):572-578. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.07.025. View

11.

Becking E, Scheffer P, Henrichs J, Bax C, Crombag N, Weiss M . Fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in noninvasive prenatal testing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a nationwide retrospective cohort study of 56,110 pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 231(2):244.e1-244.e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.008. View

12.

Parra-Cordero M, Sepulveda-Martinez A, Rencoret G, Valdes E, Pedraza D, Munoz H . Is there a role for cervical assessment and uterine artery Doppler in the first trimester of pregnancy as a screening test for spontaneous preterm delivery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 43(3):291-6. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12465. View

13.

Chaiyasit N, Sahota D, Ma R, Choolani M, Wataganara T, Sim W . Prospective Evaluation of International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications Collaborative Network Models for Prediction of Preeclampsia: Role of Serum sFlt-1 at 11-13 Weeks' Gestation. Hypertension. 2021; 79(2):314-322. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18021. View

14.

Caliskan E, Kayikcioglu F, Ozturk N, Koc S, Haberal A . A population-based risk factor scoring will decrease unnecessary testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83(6):524-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00389.x. View

15.

Wu Y, Hamelmann P, van der Ven M, Asvadi S, van der Hout-van der Jagt M, Oei S . Early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus using maternal demographic and clinical risk factors. BMC Res Notes. 2024; 17(1):105. PMC: 11021008. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-024-06758-z. View

16.

Donovan B, Breheny P, Robinson J, Baer R, Saftlas A, Bao W . Development and validation of a clinical model for preconception and early pregnancy risk prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in nulliparous women. PLoS One. 2019; 14(4):e0215173. PMC: 6461273. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215173. View

17.

Benhalima K, Van Crombrugge P, Moyson C, Verhaeghe J, Vandeginste S, Verlaenen H . Estimating the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus based on the 2013 WHO criteria: a prediction model based on clinical and biochemical variables in early pregnancy. Acta Diabetol. 2020; 57(6):661-671. DOI: 10.1007/s00592-019-01469-5. View

18.

Chiu C, Feng Q, Chaemsaithong P, Sahota D, Lau Y, Yeung Y . Prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and preterm prelabor rupture of membranes using maternal factors, obstetric history and biomarkers of placental function at 11-13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 60(2):192-199. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24917. View

19.

Wolff R, Moons K, Riley R, Whiting P, Westwood M, Collins G . PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(1):51-58. DOI: 10.7326/M18-1376. View

20.

Kotzaeridi G, Blatter J, Eppel D, Rosicky I, Mittlbock M, Yerlikaya-Schatten G . Performance of early risk assessment tools to predict the later development of gestational diabetes. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021; 51(12):e13630. PMC: 9285036. DOI: 10.1111/eci.13630. View