ArticleHeliyon2016
Screening for post 32-week preterm birth risk: how helpful is routine perinatal data collection?
Article in Heliyon, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal Plasma RNA in First Trimester Nullipara for the Prediction of Spontaneous Preterm Birth ≤ 32 Weeks: Validation Study.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Development of prognostic model for preterm birth using machine learning in a population-based cohort of Western Australia births between 1980 and 2015.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Predictions of Preterm Birth from Early Pregnancy Characteristics: Born in Guangzhou Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreterm birth is a clinical event significant but difficult to predict. Biomarkers such as fetal fibronectin and cervical length are effective, but the often are used only for women with clinically suspected preterm risk. It is unknown whether routinely collected data can be used in early pregnancy to stratify preterm birth risk by identifying asymptomatic women. This paper tries to determine the value of the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection (VPDC) dataset in predicting preterm birth and screening for invasive tests.
methodsDe-identified VPDC report data from 2009 to 2013 were extracted for patients from Barwon Health in Victoria. Logistic regression models with elastic-net regularization were fitted to predict 37-week preterm, with the VPDC antenatal variables as predictors. The models were also extended with two additional variables not routinely noted in the VPDC: previous preterm birth and partner smoking status, testing the hypothesis that these two factors add prediction accuracy. Prediction performance was evaluated using a number of metrics, including Brier scores, Nagelkerke's R(2), c statistic.
resultsAlthough the predictive model utilising VPDC data had a low overall prediction performance, it had a reasonable discrimination (c statistic 0.646 [95% CI: 0.596-0.697] for 37-week preterm) and good calibration (goodness-of-fit p = 0.61). On a decision threshold of 0.2, a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 0.333 and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.941 were achieved. Data on previous preterm and partner smoking did not significantly improve prediction.
conclusionsFor multiparous women, the routine data contains information comparable to some purposely-collected data for predicting preterm risk. But for nulliparous women, the routine data contains insufficient data related to antenatal complications.
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.