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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije, Kwee, Anneke, Naaktgeboren, Christiana A., Franx, Arie, Moons, Karel G. M., Koster, Maria P. H.
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