Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647224›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Validation of a prognostic model for adverse perinatal health outcomes.

Jacqueline Lagendijk, Ewout W Steyerberg, Leonie A Daalderop, Jasper V Been, Eric A P Steegers, Anke G Posthumus

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline LagendijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.lagendijk.2@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7178-8910
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Leonie A DaalderopDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jasper V BeenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric A P SteegersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anke G PosthumusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a strong association between social deprivation and adverse perinatal health outcomes, but related risk factors receive little attention in current antenatal risk selection. To increase awareness of healthcare professionals for these risk factors, a model for antenatal risk surveillance and care was developed in The Netherlands, called the 'Rotterdam Reproductive Risk Reduction' (R4U) scorecard. The aim of this study was to validate the R4U-scorecard. This study was conducted using external, prospective data from thirty-two midwifery practices, and fifteen hospitals in The Netherlands. The main outcome measures were the discrimination of the prognostic models for the probability of a pregnant woman developing adverse pregnancy outcomes (babies born preterm or small for gestational age), and calibration. We performed cross-validation and updated the model using statistical re-estimation of all predictors. 1752 participants were included, of whom 282 (16%) had one of the predefined adverse outcomes. The discriminative value of the original scoring system was poor [area under the curve (AUC) of 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.64)]. The model showed moderate calibration. The updated R4U-scorecard showed good generalisability to the validation set but did not alter the predictive value [AUC 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)]. By using external data and by updating the prognostic model, we have provided a comprehensive evaluation of the R4U-scorecard. Further improvement in classification of high-risk pregnancies is important considering the necessity of early risk detection for healthcare professionals to take appropriate actions to prevent these risks from becoming manifest problems.

Indexed as

AdultArea Under CurveCalibrationFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Small for Gestational AgeMidwiferyModels, StatisticalNetherlandsOutcome Assessment, Health CareParturitionPerinatal CarePredictive Value of TestsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID32647224
PMCPMC7347528
OpenAlexW3040721536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.