2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2018.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discriminatory Accuracy of Preeclampsia Risk Factors in Primary Care

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
4
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean ± SD MAP was 93. 28 There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of preeclampsia, baseline characteristics, or medications between the development and validation sets, except for mucocutaneous manifestation and aspirin use, but all these factors showed the same trends in the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups (see Supplementary Risk factors for preeclampsia among pregnant patients with SLE. Each variable with statistical significance (P < 0.05) in the univariate analysis of the development set was chosen as a potential predictor for preeclampsia (see Supplementary Table 2, available on the Arthritis Care & Research website at http://onlin elibr ary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.24265/ abstract).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The mean ± SD MAP was 93. 28 There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of preeclampsia, baseline characteristics, or medications between the development and validation sets, except for mucocutaneous manifestation and aspirin use, but all these factors showed the same trends in the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups (see Supplementary Risk factors for preeclampsia among pregnant patients with SLE. Each variable with statistical significance (P < 0.05) in the univariate analysis of the development set was chosen as a potential predictor for preeclampsia (see Supplementary Table 2, available on the Arthritis Care & Research website at http://onlin elibr ary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.24265/ abstract).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…MAP measurement in the first trimester has been shown to be effective in many predictive studies on preeclampsia, whether alone or in combination with ultrasound or biomarkers (15,(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). In a retrospective analysis of the general population, a MAP ≥88 mm Hg predicted preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 0.78 and a specificity of 0.63, without previous medical history considered (30).The detection rate of preeclampsia using MAP increased from 43% to 67% when MAP was added to the maternal characteristics (34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Estimates of such diagnostic indicators were made using the free statistical package Epidat 3.1 23 . Diagnostic efficacy indicators were considered unacceptable, acceptable, or ideal based on the following criteria [24][25][26][27] : Sn, PPV, and NPV, ideal ≥ 80%, acceptable 60% to 79.9%, and unacceptable < 60%; Sp, ideal ≥ 95%, acceptable 90% to 94.9%, and unacceptable < 90%; LR+, ideal ≥ 10, acceptable 5 to10, and unacceptable < 5; and AUROC, ideal > 0.90, acceptable 0.70 to 0.90, and unacceptable < 0.70.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Las estimaciones de dichos indicadores se realizaron con el paquete estadístico gratuito Epidat 3.1 23 . Los indicadores de eficacia diagnóstica se consideraron inaceptables, aceptables o ideales, de acuerdo con los siguientes criterios [24][25][26][27] : S, VPP y VPN, ideales ≥ 80%, aceptable 60-79.9% e inaceptable < 60%; E, ideal ≥ 95%, aceptable 90-94.9% e inaceptable < 90%; RV+, ideal ≥ 10, aceptable 5-10 e inaceptable < 5; y AUROC, ideal > 0.90, aceptable 0.70-0.90 e inaceptable < 0.70.…”
Section: Análisis Estadísticounclassified