Aquino-Vásquez Patricia N, Chuquipoma-Zanabria Luis Gm, Lazo-Porras Maria, Flores-Noriega Mónica
Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú.
CRONICAS, Centro de Excelencia en Enfermedades Crónicas, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú.
Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2025 Jun 9;42(1):46-53. doi: 10.17843/rpmesp.2025.421.14041.
OBJECTIVES.: To evaluate the ability of the Risk Factor Scale for Preeclampsia Complications (RFSPC) and the fullPIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) scale to predict complications of preeclampsia in pregnant women diagnosed with preeclampsia who were admitted to the obstetrics and gynecology department of a referral hospital, from October 2021 to December 2022.
MATERIALS AND METHODS.: This was a retrospective cohort design study. Data was collected from the medical records of patients diagnosed with preeclampsia, and both scales (RFSPC and fullPIERS) were applied. With these results, the sensitivity, specificity and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were obtained by taking different cut-off points. The best score was selected as the one with the highest AUC. The differences between the scales were explored by comparing their AUCs.
RESULTS.: We included 367 pregnant women. The RFSPC had a sensitivity of 71%, a specificity of 73% and an AUC of 0.722 with a cutoff point of 3 points. Whereas the fullPIERS scale showed 76%, 84% and 0.804 respectively with a cutoff point of 0.75%.
CONCLUSIONS.: Both scales can be useful for identifying pregnant women at risk of complications with cutoff points different from those defined internationally.
评估子痫前期并发症风险因素量表（RFSPC）和全PIERS（子痫前期综合风险评估）量表对2021年10月至2022年12月入住一家转诊医院妇产科、被诊断为子痫前期的孕妇子痫前期并发症的预测能力。
这是一项回顾性队列设计研究。从被诊断为子痫前期的患者病历中收集数据，并应用这两个量表（RFSPC和全PIERS）。根据这些结果，通过采用不同的截断点获得敏感性、特异性和ROC曲线下面积（AUC）。选择AUC最高的分数作为最佳分数。通过比较两个量表的AUC来探讨它们之间的差异。
我们纳入了367名孕妇。RFSPC量表在截断点为3分时，敏感性为71%，特异性为73%，AUC为0.722。而全PIERS量表在截断点为0.75%时，敏感性、特异性和AUC分别为76%、84%和0.804。
这两个量表在采用与国际定义不同的截断点时，都有助于识别有并发症风险的孕妇。
