Search

Objective: Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at high risk of stillbirth can guide decisions on the need for closer surveillance and timing of delivery in order to prevent fetal death. Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none has yet been validated externally. In this study, we externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to December 2020 to identify studies reporting stillbirth prediction models. Studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy were included. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network were used to validate externally the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. The risk of bias of the models and cohorts was assessed using the Prediction study Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the C-statistic, and calibration was assessed using calibration plots, calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large. Performance measures were estimated separately in each cohort, as well as summarized across cohorts using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit.Results: Seventeen studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth were identified. None of the models had been previously validated externally, and the full model equation was reported for only one-fifth (20%, 8/40) of the models. External validation was possible for three of these models, using IPD from 19 cohorts (491 201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluation of the model development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias, according to PROBAST. In the IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65 and summary calibration slopes ranging from 0.40 to 0.88, with risk predictions that were generally too extreme compared with the observed risks. The models had little to no clinical utility, as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in the performance of some models due to small available sample sizes.Conclusions: The three validated stillbirth prediction models showed generally poor and uncertain predictive performance in new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. The findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development, including overfitting. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors and develop more robust prediction models. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study to evaluate whether mortality and implant revision rates differ in osteoarthritis patients undergoing cemented or uncemented total hip replacement or hip resurfacing. The study concluded that Flexible parametric survival analyses, adjusted for confounding factors, identified a slightly higher mortality rate and a slightly lower revision rate for patients undergoing cemented rather than uncemented total hip replacement.

Objective: Primary studies and systematic reviews provide estimates of varying accuracy for different factors in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to review published systematic reviews to collate evidence on the ability of available tests to predict pre-eclampsia, to identify high-value avenues for future research and to minimize future research waste in this field.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library including DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) databases, from database inception to March 2017, and bibliographies of relevant articles were searched, without language restrictions, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool and a modified version of the QUIPS tool. We evaluated the comprehensiveness of search, sample size, tests and outcomes evaluated, data synthesis methods, predictive ability estimates, risk of bias related to the population studied, measurement of predictors and outcomes, study attrition and adjustment for confounding.Results: From 2444 citations identified, 126 reviews were included, reporting on over 90 predictors and 52 prediction models for pre-eclampsia. Around a third (n = 37 (29.4%)) of all reviews investigated solely biochemical markers for predicting pre-eclampsia, 31 (24.6%) investigated genetic associations with pre-eclampsia, 46 (36.5%) reported on clinical characteristics, four (3.2%) evaluated only ultrasound markers and six (4.8%) studied a combination of tests; two (1.6%) additional reviews evaluated primary studies investigating any screening test for pre-eclampsia. Reviews included between two and 265 primary studies, including up to 25 356 688 women in the largest review. Only approximately half (n = 67 (53.2%)) of the reviews assessed the quality of the included studies. There was a high risk of bias in many of the included reviews, particularly in relation to population representativeness and study attrition. Over 80% (n = 106 (84.1%)) summarized the findings using meta-analysis. Thirty-two (25.4%) studies lacked a formal statement on funding. The predictors with the best test performance were body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m2 , with a specificity of 92% (95% CI, 89-95%) and a sensitivity of 21% (95% CI, 12-31%); BMI > 25 kg/m2 , with a specificity of 73% (95% CI, 64-83%) and a sensitivity of 47% (95% CI, 33-61%); first-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index or resistance index > 90th centile (specificity 93% (95% CI, 90-96%) and sensitivity 26% (95% CI, 23-31%)); placental growth factor (specificity 89% (95% CI, 89-89%) and sensitivity 65% (95% CI, 63-67%)); and placental protein 13 (specificity 88% (95% CI, 87-89%) and sensitivity 37% (95% CI, 33-41%)). No single marker had a test performance suitable for routine clinical use. Models combining markers showed promise, but none had undergone external validation.Conclusions: This review of reviews calls into question the need for further aggregate meta-analysis in this area given the large number of published reviews subject to the common limitations of primary predictive studies. Prospective, well-designed studies of predictive markers, preferably randomized intervention studies, and combined through individual-patient data meta-analysis are needed to develop and validate new prediction models to facilitate the prediction of pre-eclampsia and minimize further research waste in this field. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]