Cargando…
Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. METH...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7 |
_version_ | 1783409863476379648 |
---|---|
author | Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije Kwee, Anneke Naaktgeboren, Christiana A. Franx, Arie Moons, Karel G. M. Koster, Maria P. H. |
author_facet | Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije Kwee, Anneke Naaktgeboren, Christiana A. Franx, Arie Moons, Karel G. M. Koster, Maria P. H. |
author_sort | Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until December 2014. Key words for GDM, first trimester of pregnancy, and prediction modeling studies were combined. Prediction models for GDM performed up to 14 weeks of gestation that only include routinely measured predictors were eligible. Data was extracted by the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Data on risk predictors and performance measures were also extracted. Each study was scored for risk of bias. RESULTS: Our search yielded 7761 articles, of which 17 were eligible for review (14 development studies and 3 external validation studies). The definition and prevalence of GDM varied widely across studies. Maternal age and body mass index were the most common predictors. Discrimination was acceptable for all studies. Calibration was reported for four studies. Risk of bias for participant selection, predictor assessment, and outcome assessment was low in general. Moderate to high risk of bias was seen for the number of events, attrition, and analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed moderate to low methodological quality, and few prediction models for GDM have been externally validated. External validation is recommended to enhance generalizability and assess their true value in clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6457144 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64571442019-05-15 Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije Kwee, Anneke Naaktgeboren, Christiana A. Franx, Arie Moons, Karel G. M. Koster, Maria P. H. Diagn Progn Res Review BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until December 2014. Key words for GDM, first trimester of pregnancy, and prediction modeling studies were combined. Prediction models for GDM performed up to 14 weeks of gestation that only include routinely measured predictors were eligible. Data was extracted by the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Data on risk predictors and performance measures were also extracted. Each study was scored for risk of bias. RESULTS: Our search yielded 7761 articles, of which 17 were eligible for review (14 development studies and 3 external validation studies). The definition and prevalence of GDM varied widely across studies. Maternal age and body mass index were the most common predictors. Discrimination was acceptable for all studies. Calibration was reported for four studies. Risk of bias for participant selection, predictor assessment, and outcome assessment was low in general. Moderate to high risk of bias was seen for the number of events, attrition, and analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed moderate to low methodological quality, and few prediction models for GDM have been externally validated. External validation is recommended to enhance generalizability and assess their true value in clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6457144/ /pubmed/31093535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije Kwee, Anneke Naaktgeboren, Christiana A. Franx, Arie Moons, Karel G. M. Koster, Maria P. H. Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title | Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title_full | Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title_short | Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
title_sort | prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lamainderuitermarije predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview AT kweeanneke predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview AT naaktgeborenchristianaa predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview AT franxarie predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview AT moonskarelgm predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview AT kostermariaph predictionmodelsfortheriskofgestationaldiabetesasystematicreview |