Unidad de Investigación Epidemiológica y en Servicios de Salud/CIBIN, Delegación Nuevo León, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Monterrey, México; Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Medicina, Monterrey, México.
Unidad de Investigación Epidemiológica y en Servicios de Salud/CIBIN, Delegación Nuevo León, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Monterrey, México; Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Salud Pública y Nutrición, Monterrey, México.
Arch Med Res. 2018 May;49(4):240-247. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2018.09.006. Epub 2018 Sep 25.
Although it is common to use risk factors in the screening for preeclampsia, they do not always accurately identify patients who truly have this condition.
To determine the discriminatory accuracy of known preeclampsia risk factors, both individually and in combination.
We studied patients undergoing prenatal care who were diagnosed with preeclampsia or eclampsia (n = 160 cases) in primary care and those who were not (n = 430 controls). Data on history of preeclampsia, type 2 diabetes, chronic hypertension, multiple gestation, first pregnancy, pregnancy interval ≥10 years, overweight/obesity, mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥80 mmHg, and age (<20 years and ≥40 years) were obtained using a dichotomous scale. Discriminatory accuracy indicators were true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) rates, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve; stratified by parity. The case-control status was the reference standard.
Certain combinations performed better than individual factors, independent of parity status. Among multiparous women, MAP ≥80 mmHg together with previous preeclampsia and overweight/obesity accumulated the greatest number of discriminatory accuracy indicators, with acceptable values: TP, 72.2%; FP, 1.5%; LR+, 48.4; LR-, 0.3; DOR, 171.6; and AUROC, 0.85.
Discriminatory accuracy was low for almost all individual preeclampsia risk factors. However, the accuracy improved after some factors were combined. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the discriminatory accuracy of preeclampsia risk factors used for screening high-risk pregnancies in primary care in Mexico.
虽然在子痫前期的筛查中使用风险因素很常见,但它们并不总是能准确识别出真正患有这种疾病的患者。
确定已知子痫前期风险因素的鉴别准确性,包括单独使用和组合使用。
我们研究了在初级保健中心被诊断为子痫前期或子痫的患者(病例组 160 例)和未被诊断为子痫前期或子痫的患者(对照组 430 例)。使用二分类量表获取患者的病史,包括子痫前期史、2 型糖尿病、慢性高血压、多胎妊娠、初产妇、妊娠间隔≥10 年、超重/肥胖、平均动脉压(MAP)≥80mmHg 和年龄(<20 岁和≥40 岁)。鉴别准确性指标包括真阳性(TP)和假阳性(FP)率、阳性和阴性似然比(LR+和 LR-)、诊断优势比(DOR)和受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUROC);并按产次进行分层。病例对照状态为参考标准。
某些组合的表现优于单个因素,与产次无关。在多产妇中,MAP≥80mmHg 加上既往子痫前期和超重/肥胖累积了最多的鉴别准确性指标,具有可接受的值:TP,72.2%;FP,1.5%;LR+,48.4;LR-,0.3;DOR,171.6;AUROC,0.85。
几乎所有单独的子痫前期风险因素的鉴别准确性都较低。然而,在一些因素组合使用后,准确性有所提高。据我们所知,这是第一项在墨西哥初级保健中研究子痫前期风险因素用于筛查高危妊娠的鉴别准确性的研究。