Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33336645›Full record

ArticleHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Validation and development of models using clinical, biochemical and ultrasound markers for predicting pre-eclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

John Allotey, Kym Ie Snell, Melanie Smuk, Richard Hooper, Claire L Chan, Asif Ahmed, Lucy C Chappell, Peter von Dadelszen, Julie Dodds, Marcus Green and 52 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of maternal education on maternal and perinatal outcomes: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 2 356 402 pregnancies.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Phenotype-Directed Management of Hypertension in Pregnancy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022
    Review
  16. 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

62 authors at 20 institutions in 15 countries.

Peter von DadelszenORCID 0000-0003-4136-3070
Basky ThilaganathanORCID 0000-0002-5531-4301
Wessel GanzevoortORCID 0000-0002-7243-2115
Javier A RamírezORCID 0000-0003-2291-720X
George DaskalakisORCID 0000-0001-7108-211X
Fabricio da Silva CostaORCID 0000-0002-0765-7780
Francois AudibertORCID 0000-0002-2697-3826
Ragnhild B SkråstadORCID 0000-0003-3810-0413
Kjell Å SalvesenORCID 0000-0002-1788-4063
Camilla HaavaldsenORCID 0000-0002-4708-3267
Christina A VinterORCID 0000-0001-5084-6053
Louise B AndersenORCID 0000-0002-3331-7149
Sohinee BhattacharyaORCID 0000-0002-2358-5860
Fionnuala M McAuliffeORCID 0000-0002-3477-6494
Kerstin Klipstein-GrobuschORCID 0000-0002-5462-9889
Shakila ThangaratinamORCID 0000-0002-4254-460X
Queen Mary University of London · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FIUtrecht University · NLKeele University · GBNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKAction for ME · GBAkershus University Hospital · NOAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAston University · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CAHospital Universitario 12 De Octubre · ESHospital Universitario De Cabueñes · ESJichi Medical University · JPJohns Hopkins University · USMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

Department of Health 14/158/02Department of Health PDF-2014-07-019Department of Health RP-2014-05-019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk is needed to plan management.

objectivesTo assess the performance of existing pre-eclampsia prediction models and to develop and validate models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data meta-analysis. We also estimated the prognostic value of individual markers.

designThis was an individual participant data meta-analysis of cohort studies.

settingSource data from secondary and tertiary care. PREDICTORS: We identified predictors from systematic reviews, and prioritised for importance in an international survey. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Early-onset (delivery at < 34 weeks' gestation), late-onset (delivery at ≥ 34 weeks' gestation) and any-onset pre-eclampsia. ANALYSIS: We externally validated existing prediction models in UK cohorts and reported their performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. We developed and validated 12 new models based on clinical characteristics, clinical characteristics and biochemical markers, and clinical characteristics and ultrasound markers in the first and second trimesters. We summarised the data set-specific performance of each model using a random-effects meta-analysis. Discrimination was considered promising for

resultsThe International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications network comprised 78 studies (3,570,993 singleton pregnancies) identified from systematic reviews of tests to predict pre-eclampsia. Twenty-four of the 131 published prediction models could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Summary LIMITATIONS: Variations in study population characteristics, type of predictors reported, too few events in some validation cohorts and the type of measurements contributed to heterogeneity in performance of the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications models. Some published models were not validated because model predictors were unavailable in the individual participant data.

conclusionFor models that could be validated, predictive performance was generally poor across data sets. Although the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications models show good predictive performance on average, and in the singleton nulliparous population, heterogeneity in calibration performance is likely across settings. FUTURE WORK: Recalibration of model parameters within populations may improve calibration performance. Additional strong predictors need to be identified to improve model performance and consistency. Validation, including examination of calibration heterogeneity, is required for the models we could not validate. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015029349.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

BiomarkersPregnancy ComplicationsPrognosisUltrasonographyAdultFemaleGestational AgeHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPlacenta Growth FactorPre-EclampsiaPregnancyRisk AssessmentBiomarkersPlacenta Growth FactorINDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT DATAIPDPREDICTION MODELPRE-ECLAMPSIAPROGNOSTIC MODELVALIDATION

Identifiers

PMID33336645
PMCPMC7780127
OpenAlexW3115448160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.