Townsend, R, Manji, A, Allotey, J, Heazell, A, Jorgensen, L, Magee, LA, Mol, BW, Snell, KIE ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9373-6591, Riley, RD ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8699-0735, Sandall, J, Smith, G, Patel, M, Thilaganathan, B, von Dadelszen, P, Thangaratinam, S and Khalil, A (2020) Can risk prediction models help us individualise stillbirth prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of published risk models. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[img] Text
1471-0528.16487.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 7 September 2021.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (11MB)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth prevention is an international priority - risk prediction models could individualise care and reduce unnecessary intervention, but their use requires evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify risk prediction models for stillbirth, and assess their potential accuracy and clinical benefit in practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to June 2019 using terms relevant to stillbirth, perinatal mortality and prediction models. The search was compliant with PRISMA guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies developing and/or validating prediction models for risk of stillbirth developed for application during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was appraised using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: The search identified 2751 citations. Fourteen studies reporting development of 69 models were included. Variables consistently included were: ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), uterine artery Doppler, pregnancy-associated plasma protein (PAPP-A) and placental growth factor (PlGF). Almost all models had significant concern about risk of bias. Apparent model performance (i.e. in the development dataset) was highest in models developed for use later in pregnancy and including maternal characteristics, and ultrasound and biochemical variables, but few were internally validated and none were externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all models identified were at high risk of bias. There are first trimester models of possible clinical benefit in early risk stratification; these require validation and clinical evaluation. There were few later pregnancy models, but if validated, these could be most relevant to individualised discussions around timing of birth.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: The final version of this article, and all relevant information regarding this paper can be found online at; https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-0528.16487
Uncontrolled Keywords: stillbirth; prediction; model; epidemiology; perinatal; Systematic reviews; Fetal medicine; serum screening
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
R Medicine > R Medicine (General) > R735 Medical education. Medical schools. Research
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
R Medicine > RG Gynecology and obstetrics
R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics
R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics > RJ101 Child Health. Child health services
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Primary, Community and Social Care
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 18 Sep 2020 07:43
Last Modified: 18 Sep 2020 07:43
URI: https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/id/eprint/8664

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item