ArticleClinical medicine insights. Reproductive health2016
Accurate Point-of-Care Detection of Ruptured Fetal Membranes: Improved Diagnostic Performance Characteristics with a Monoclonal/Polyclonal Immunoassay.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Reproductive health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Current and Emerging Strategies for Prediction and Diagnosis of Prelabour Rupture of the Membranes: A Narrative Review.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2021Review
- The Prevalence and Payer Costs of Potentially Avoidable Emergent Care Visits for Suspected Amniotic Membrane Rupture in Pregnant Women.American health & drug benefits · 2018Article
- Point-of-care diagnostics to improve maternal and neonatal health in low-resource settings.Lab on a chip · 2017Review
- Comparison of rapid immunoassays for rupture of fetal membranes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Observational
- ROM Plus(®): accurate point-of-care detection of ruptured fetal membranes.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAccurate and timely diagnosis of rupture of membranes (ROM) is imperative to allow for gestational age-specific interventions. This study compared the diagnostic performance characteristics between two methods used for the detection of ROM as measured in the same patient.
methodsVaginal secretions were evaluated using the conventional fern test as well as a point-of-care monoclonal/polyclonal immunoassay test (ROM Plus(®)) in 75 pregnant patients who presented to labor and delivery with complaints of leaking amniotic fluid. Both tests were compared to analytical confirmation of ROM using three external laboratory tests. Diagnostic performance characteristics were calculated including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.
resultsDiagnostic performance characteristics uniformly favored ROM detection using the immunoassay test compared to the fern test: sensitivity (100% vs. 77.8%), specificity (94.8% vs. 79.3%), PPV (75% vs. 36.8%), NPV (100% vs. 95.8%), and accuracy (95.5% vs. 79.1%).
conclusionsThe point-of-care immunoassay test provides improved diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ROM compared to fern testing. It has the potential of improving patient management decisions, thereby minimizing serious complications and perinatal morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.