Comparison of first trimester preeclampsia combined screening performances with various approaches in the Indonesian population.

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of Perinatology Pub Date : 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1038/s41372-025-02316-y

Adly Nanda Al Fattah, Muhammad Pradhiki Mahindra, Mirani Ulfa Yusrika, Muhammad Pradhika Mapindra, Felix Firyanto Widjaja, Vania Permata Putri, Shinda Marizni, Sara L Hillman, Raden Aditya Kusuma

{"title":"Comparison of first trimester preeclampsia combined screening performances with various approaches in the Indonesian population.","authors":"Adly Nanda Al Fattah, Muhammad Pradhiki Mahindra, Mirani Ulfa Yusrika, Muhammad Pradhika Mapindra, Felix Firyanto Widjaja, Vania Permata Putri, Shinda Marizni, Sara L Hillman, Raden Aditya Kusuma","doi":"10.1038/s41372-025-02316-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aimed to compare Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), Indonesian Maternal and Children Health Handbook (MCH-HB), and Indonesian Prenatal Institute (IPI) models for predicting PE.Materials/subjects and methods: Maternal risk factors, biophysical, and biochemical markers were recorded from women screened for PE at 11-14 gestational weeks. The receiving operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the detection rate (DR) among prediction models.Results: For all PE at a 10% false-positive rate (FPR), FMF had a DR 62.9%; MCH-HB had a DR 50.0%; IPI had a DR 66.9%. For early-onset PE, at 10% FPR FMF had a DR 80.3%; MCH-HB had a DR 71.4%; IPI had a DR 81.5%. For preterm PE at 10% FPR, FMF had a DR 70.2%; MCH-HB had a DR 38.5%; IPI had a DR 66.9%.Discussion: IPI algorithm is comparable to FMF and outperforms MCH-HB algorithm for all, early-onset, and preterm PE screening.","PeriodicalId":16690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02316-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), Indonesian Maternal and Children Health Handbook (MCH-HB), and Indonesian Prenatal Institute (IPI) models for predicting PE.

Materials/subjects and methods: Maternal risk factors, biophysical, and biochemical markers were recorded from women screened for PE at 11-14 gestational weeks. The receiving operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the detection rate (DR) among prediction models.

Results: For all PE at a 10% false-positive rate (FPR), FMF had a DR 62.9%; MCH-HB had a DR 50.0%; IPI had a DR 66.9%. For early-onset PE, at 10% FPR FMF had a DR 80.3%; MCH-HB had a DR 71.4%; IPI had a DR 81.5%. For preterm PE at 10% FPR, FMF had a DR 70.2%; MCH-HB had a DR 38.5%; IPI had a DR 66.9%.

Discussion: IPI algorithm is comparable to FMF and outperforms MCH-HB algorithm for all, early-onset, and preterm PE screening.

查看原文本刊更多论文

印度尼西亚人群中早期子痫前期联合筛查与各种方法的比较

前言：本研究旨在比较胎儿医学基金会（FMF）、印度尼西亚妇幼保健手册（MCH-HB）和印度尼西亚产前研究所（IPI）预测PE的模型。材料/对象和方法：记录11-14孕周PE筛查妇女的产妇危险因素、生物物理和生化指标。采用接收算子曲线（ROC）分析比较各预测模型的检出率（DR）。结果：假阳性率为10%的PE中，FMF的假阳性率为62.9%；MCH-HB的DR为50.0%；IPI的DR为66.9%。对于早发性PE， 10% FPR时FMF的DR为80.3%；MCH-HB的DR为71.4%；IPI的DR为81.5%。对于10% FPR的早产儿PE， FMF的DR为70.2%；MCH-HB的DR为38.5%；IPI的DR为66.9%。讨论：IPI算法与FMF相当，并且在所有早发性和早产PE筛查中优于MCH-HB算法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Perinatology 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

6.90%

发文量

284

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Perinatology provides members of the perinatal/neonatal healthcare team with original information pertinent to improving maternal/fetal and neonatal care. We publish peer-reviewed clinical research articles, state-of-the art reviews, comments, quality improvement reports, and letters to the editor. Articles published in the Journal of Perinatology embrace the full scope of the specialty, including clinical, professional, political, administrative and educational aspects. The Journal also explores legal and ethical issues, neonatal technology and product development. The Journal’s audience includes all those that participate in perinatal/neonatal care, including, but not limited to neonatologists, perinatologists, perinatal epidemiologists, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists, surgeons, neonatal and perinatal nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, dieticians, speech and hearing experts, other allied health professionals, as well as subspecialists who participate in patient care including radiologists, laboratory medicine and pathologists.