Cargando…

Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first‐trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first‐trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population‐based multic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Hoorn, F, Koster, MPH, Naaktgeboren, CA, Groenendaal, F, Kwee, A, Lamain‐de Ruiter, M, Franx, A, Bekker, MN
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32757408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16446
_version_ 1783652674571337728
author van Hoorn, F
Koster, MPH
Naaktgeboren, CA
Groenendaal, F
Kwee, A
Lamain‐de Ruiter, M
Franx, A
Bekker, MN
author_facet van Hoorn, F
Koster, MPH
Naaktgeboren, CA
Groenendaal, F
Kwee, A
Lamain‐de Ruiter, M
Franx, A
Bekker, MN
author_sort van Hoorn, F
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first‐trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first‐trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population‐based multicentre cohort. SETTING: Thirty‐one independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women recruited before 14 weeks of gestation without pre‐existing diabetes. METHODS: The single risk factor approach (presence of at least one risk factor: BMI ≥30 kg/m(2), previous macrosomia, history of GDM, positive first‐degree family history of diabetes, non‐western ethnicity) was compared with the four best performing models in our previously published external validation study (Gabbay‐Benziv 2014, Nanda 2011, Teede 2011, van Leeuwen 2010) with and without the addition of glucose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination was assessed by c‐statistics, calibration by calibration plots, added value of glucose by the likelihood ratio chi‐square test, net benefit by decision curve analysis and reclassification by reclassification plots. RESULTS: Of the 3723 women included, a total of 181 (4.9%) developed GDM. The c‐statistics of the prognostic models were higher, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 without glucose and from 0.78 to 0.80 with glucose, compared with the single risk factor approach (0.72). Models showed adequate calibration, and yielded a higher net benefit than the single risk factor approach for most threshold probabilities. Teede 2011 performed best in the reclassification analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First‐trimester prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for GDM, particularly when glucose was added as a predictor. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for gestational diabetes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7891327
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78913272021-03-02 Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study van Hoorn, F Koster, MPH Naaktgeboren, CA Groenendaal, F Kwee, A Lamain‐de Ruiter, M Franx, A Bekker, MN BJOG Original Articles OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first‐trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first‐trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population‐based multicentre cohort. SETTING: Thirty‐one independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women recruited before 14 weeks of gestation without pre‐existing diabetes. METHODS: The single risk factor approach (presence of at least one risk factor: BMI ≥30 kg/m(2), previous macrosomia, history of GDM, positive first‐degree family history of diabetes, non‐western ethnicity) was compared with the four best performing models in our previously published external validation study (Gabbay‐Benziv 2014, Nanda 2011, Teede 2011, van Leeuwen 2010) with and without the addition of glucose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination was assessed by c‐statistics, calibration by calibration plots, added value of glucose by the likelihood ratio chi‐square test, net benefit by decision curve analysis and reclassification by reclassification plots. RESULTS: Of the 3723 women included, a total of 181 (4.9%) developed GDM. The c‐statistics of the prognostic models were higher, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 without glucose and from 0.78 to 0.80 with glucose, compared with the single risk factor approach (0.72). Models showed adequate calibration, and yielded a higher net benefit than the single risk factor approach for most threshold probabilities. Teede 2011 performed best in the reclassification analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First‐trimester prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for GDM, particularly when glucose was added as a predictor. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for gestational diabetes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-01 2021-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7891327/ /pubmed/32757408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16446 Text en © 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
van Hoorn, F
Koster, MPH
Naaktgeboren, CA
Groenendaal, F
Kwee, A
Lamain‐de Ruiter, M
Franx, A
Bekker, MN
Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title_full Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title_fullStr Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title_short Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
title_sort prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first‐trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population‐based multicentre cohort study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32757408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16446
work_keys_str_mv AT vanhoornf prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT kostermph prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT naaktgeborenca prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT groenendaalf prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT kweea prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT lamainderuiterm prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT franxa prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy
AT bekkermn prognosticmodelsversussingleriskfactorapproachinfirsttrimesterselectivescreeningforgestationaldiabetesmellitusaprospectivepopulationbasedmulticentrecohortstudy