ArticleNigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
A Composite Risk Scoring Model for Predicting Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Patients with Pre-Eclampsia- A Pilot Study.
Article in Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate early identification of pregnancies at high risk for adverse fetal outcomes (small-for-gestational-age [SGA], preterm birth, stillbirth) enables targeted interventions. The study aims to pilot the development and internal validation of a point-based Fetal Risk Score (rFRS₅) incorporating ten routine maternal parameters, and to compare its performance against a simpler four-item score (FRS red). Methodology: In this single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 118 pregnant women, we assigned points based on clinically meaningful ranges for age, parity, BMI, blood pressure, 24-hour proteinuria, haemoglobin, platelets, ALT, AST, and LDH. We computed rFRS₅ (0-19 points) and FRS_red (0-6 points). Discrimination was assessed using the ROC AUC (5-fold cross-validation), and calibration was evaluated using the Brier score and calibration curves. Optimal thresholds were determined by sensitivity/specificity trade-offs. Variables for score development were selected a priori based on clinical relevance and published evidence. Internal validation was performed using five-fold cross-validation and calibration methods. Result: rFRS₅ achieved ROC AUC 0.80 and Brier score 0.219; FRS red achieved ROC AUC 0.82 and Brier score 0.220. For rule-out (sensitivity 100 %), rFRS₅ < 2 and FRS red < 2 both provided NPV 100 %. For rule-in, FRS red ≥ 6 yielded specificity 94 % and PPV 50 %, outperforming rFRS₅ (specificity 68 %, PPV 40 %). Conclusion: In this pilot study, both scores effectively stratify fetal risk, with the simpler FRS red offering superior rule-in performance in resource-limited settings. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.