Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34228732›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2021

Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): A prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Sarah J Stock, Margaret Horne, Merel Bruijn, Helen White, Kathleen A Boyd, Robert Heggie, Lisa Wotherspoon, Lorna Aucott, Rachel K Morris, Jon Dorling and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Disparities in Stillbirths in England: Analysis of A Population-Based Study of 1.3 Million Births.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Observational
  9. Prediction of Preterm Birth among Infants with Orofacial Cleft Defects.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2025
    Article
  10. What is the evidence? Updates in the use of antenatal corticosteroids for patients at risk of preterm birth.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors at 17 institutions in 4 countries.

Sarah J StockUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4308-856X
Margaret HorneMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-2462
Merel BruijnMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0788-4438
Helen WhiteFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7823-7831
Kathleen A BoydInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9764-0113
Robert HeggieInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7396-4773
Lisa WotherspoonMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4110-5493
Lorna AucottHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6277-7972
Rachel K MorrisInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1247-429X
Jon DorlingIWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1691-3221
Lesley JacksonQueen Elizabeth Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Manju ChandiramaniGuy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8024-6339
Anna L DavidElizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0199-6140
Asma KhalilVascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2802-7670
Andrew ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Kings College London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5273-3132
Gert-Jan van BaarenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Victoria Hodgetts-MortonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9817-4313
Tina LavenderFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ewoud SchuitDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9548-3214
Susan Harper-ClarkeLay Representative (no affiliation).
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Richard D RileyCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Jane E NormanFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6031-6953
John NorrieUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9823-9252
MRC Centre for Reproductive Health · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHouse of Representatives · NLIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CAKeele University · GBKing's College London · GBMonash University · AUQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUtrecht University · NL

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 209560/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely interventions in women presenting with preterm labour can substantially improve health outcomes for preterm babies. However, establishing such a diagnosis is very challenging, as signs and symptoms of preterm labour are common and can be nonspecific. We aimed to develop and externally validate a risk prediction model using concentration of vaginal fluid fetal fibronectin (quantitative fFN), in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and assessed its cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND

findingsPregnant women included in the analyses were 22+0 to 34+6 weeks gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of quantitative fFN test. The risk prediction model was developed and internally validated in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of 5 European prospective cohort studies (2009 to 2016; 1,783 women; mean age 29.7 years; median BMI 24.8 kg/m2; 67.6% White; 11.7% smokers; 51.8% nulliparous; 10.4% with multiple pregnancy; 139 [7.8%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The model was then externally validated in a prospective cohort study in 26 United Kingdom centres (2016 to 2018; 2,924 women; mean age 28.2 years; median BMI 25.4 kg/m2; 88.2% White; 21% smokers; 35.2% nulliparous; 3.5% with multiple pregnancy; 85 [2.9%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The developed risk prediction model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days included quantitative fFN, current smoking, not White ethnicity, nulliparity, and multiple pregnancy. After internal validation, the optimism adjusted area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92), and the optimism adjusted Nagelkerke R2 was 35% (95% CI 33% to 37%). On external validation in the prospective UK cohort population, the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94), and Nagelkerke R2 of 36% (95% CI: 34% to 38%). Recalibration of the model's intercept was required to ensure overall calibration-in-the-large. A calibration curve suggested close agreement between predicted and observed risks in the range of predictions 0% to 10%, but some miscalibration (underprediction) at higher risks (slope 1.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26)). Despite any miscalibration, the net benefit of the model was higher than "treat all" or "treat none" strategies for thresholds up to about 15% risk. The economic analysis found the prognostic model was cost effective, compared to using qualitative fFN, at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Study limitations include the limited number of participants who are not White and levels of missing data for certain variables in the development dataset.

conclusionsIn this study, we found that a risk prediction model including vaginal fFN concentration and clinical risk factors showed promising performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test and has potential to inform management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Further evaluation of the risk prediction model in clinical practice is required to determine whether the risk prediction model improves clinical outcomes if used in practice.

trial registrationThe study was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (16/WS/0068). The study was registered with ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN 41598423) and NIHR Portfolio (CPMS: 31277).

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansModels, StatisticalPregnancyPremature BirthProspective StudiesRiskUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34228732
PMCPMC8259998
OpenAlexW3173579940

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.