ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Validation of the miniPIERS model and a prognostic model for perinatal death in hypertensive pregnancy: Insights from the PREECARDIA study in Guinea-Bissau.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUsing data from the PREECARDIA study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of the miniPIERS model for adverse maternal outcomes and the prognostic model for perinatal death in Bissau.
methodsWe conducted an external validation of the two predictor models using prospectively collected data from women with preeclampsia recruited at Hospital Nacional Simão Mendes, in Guinea-Bissau, between June 2023 and January 2025. Model performance was assessed by evaluating discrimination, calibration, and risk stratification across different probability thresholds.
resultsDuring this period, 140 preeclamptic women were recruited, of whom 50 were excluded from the analysis because they had incomplete predictor or outcome information. The miniPIERS model demonstrated poor discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.664, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.78) and suboptimal calibration, with Calibration-in-the large (CITL) = 0.27, slope: 0.53. The prognostic model for perinatal death showed good discrimination (AUROC: 0.854, 95% CI: 0.77-0.93) but marked miscalibration (CITL = 1.43, slope = 2.11). The risk stratification table indicated low sensitivity and positive predictive value across different probability thresholds for both models.
conclusionThe miniPIERS model showed limited utility for risk prediction in this setting, where healthcare infrastructure and population characteristics differ from the model's development context. While the prognostic model for perinatal death showed better discrimination, its poor calibration and high baseline neonatal mortality in this setting suggest that the model's utility must be interpreted cautiously. Future research should focus on larger multicenter validation studies in similar low-resource settings to optimize and adapt risk prediction tools for maternal conditions such as preeclampsia.
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.