网络计算器预测引产后剖宫产的外部验证。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Malini Sukayogula, Maimoona Ahmed, Parthbhai Donga, Ananta Ghimire
{"title":"网络计算器预测引产后剖宫产的外部验证。","authors":"Malini Sukayogula, Maimoona Ahmed, Parthbhai Donga, Ananta Ghimire","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To externally validate a prediction model for the risk of a cesarean section after induction of labor (IOL) using a web-based cesarean risk calculator in a tertiary perinatal center and to compare the performance of three calculators in predicting the cesarean risk after IOL based on their sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study of 577 women over a period of 1 year at a tertiary perinatal center in India. Women with singleton-term pregnancies with intact membranes that underwent induction were included. We used three prediction tools; Levine's, Rossi's and Irwinda's calculators for predicting cesarean rates. The variables were entered directly into the calculators at the start of IOL, producing an individualized risk of cesarean delivery. The mode of delivery was the primary outcome variable. Area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration plots and decision making curve analysis were used for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 577 mothers who underwent IOL, 345 (59.79%) women had a vaginal birth and 232 (40.21%) underwent cesarean section. The Levine calculator reached the maximum discriminative capacity (AUC: 0.785) for our population, followed by Rossi (AUC: 0.7723) and Irwinda (AUC: 0.6608). Levine's calculator slightly overestimated the risk of cesarean section at lower thresholds but underestimated the risk at higher threshold probabilities whereas Rossi's calculator underestimated the risk of cesarean section at all threshold probabilities above 11%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Levine and Rossi calculators have the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. However, these cannot be used individually for clinical decision making without prospective studies evaluating their clinical impact on pregnant women undergoing IOL.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation of web-based calculator to predict cesarean delivery after induction of labor.\",\"authors\":\"Malini Sukayogula, Maimoona Ahmed, Parthbhai Donga, Ananta Ghimire\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijgo.70069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To externally validate a prediction model for the risk of a cesarean section after induction of labor (IOL) using a web-based cesarean risk calculator in a tertiary perinatal center and to compare the performance of three calculators in predicting the cesarean risk after IOL based on their sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study of 577 women over a period of 1 year at a tertiary perinatal center in India. Women with singleton-term pregnancies with intact membranes that underwent induction were included. We used three prediction tools; Levine's, Rossi's and Irwinda's calculators for predicting cesarean rates. The variables were entered directly into the calculators at the start of IOL, producing an individualized risk of cesarean delivery. The mode of delivery was the primary outcome variable. Area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration plots and decision making curve analysis were used for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 577 mothers who underwent IOL, 345 (59.79%) women had a vaginal birth and 232 (40.21%) underwent cesarean section. The Levine calculator reached the maximum discriminative capacity (AUC: 0.785) for our population, followed by Rossi (AUC: 0.7723) and Irwinda (AUC: 0.6608). Levine's calculator slightly overestimated the risk of cesarean section at lower thresholds but underestimated the risk at higher threshold probabilities whereas Rossi's calculator underestimated the risk of cesarean section at all threshold probabilities above 11%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Levine and Rossi calculators have the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. However, these cannot be used individually for clinical decision making without prospective studies evaluating their clinical impact on pregnant women undergoing IOL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70069","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

摘要

目的:外部验证基于网络的三级围产中心剖宫产风险计算器对人工晶状体术后剖宫产风险的预测模型,并比较三种计算器对人工晶状体术后剖宫产风险的敏感性和特异性。方法:这是一项前瞻性观察研究,577名妇女在印度的三级围产中心为期1年。接受诱导的胎膜完整的单胎足月妊娠妇女也包括在内。我们使用了三种预测工具;Levine, Rossi和Irwinda的计算器用来预测剖宫产率。这些变量在人工晶状体开始时直接输入计算器,产生剖宫产的个体化风险。分娩方式是主要的结局变量。采用ROC曲线下面积(AUC)、标定图和决策曲线分析进行比较。结果:577例接受人工晶状体的产妇中,345例(59.79%)顺产,232例(40.21%)剖宫产。Levine计算器达到了我们种群的最大判别能力(AUC: 0.785),其次是Rossi (AUC: 0.7723)和Irwinda (AUC: 0.6608)。Levine的计算器略微高估了较低阈值时剖宫产的风险,但低估了较高阈值概率时的风险,而Rossi的计算器低估了所有阈值概率高于11%时剖宫产的风险。结论:Levine和Rossi计算器在临床应用中具有很大的潜力。然而,如果没有前瞻性研究评估其对接受IOL的孕妇的临床影响,这些不能单独用于临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
External validation of web-based calculator to predict cesarean delivery after induction of labor.

Objective: To externally validate a prediction model for the risk of a cesarean section after induction of labor (IOL) using a web-based cesarean risk calculator in a tertiary perinatal center and to compare the performance of three calculators in predicting the cesarean risk after IOL based on their sensitivity and specificity.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 577 women over a period of 1 year at a tertiary perinatal center in India. Women with singleton-term pregnancies with intact membranes that underwent induction were included. We used three prediction tools; Levine's, Rossi's and Irwinda's calculators for predicting cesarean rates. The variables were entered directly into the calculators at the start of IOL, producing an individualized risk of cesarean delivery. The mode of delivery was the primary outcome variable. Area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration plots and decision making curve analysis were used for comparison.

Results: Out of 577 mothers who underwent IOL, 345 (59.79%) women had a vaginal birth and 232 (40.21%) underwent cesarean section. The Levine calculator reached the maximum discriminative capacity (AUC: 0.785) for our population, followed by Rossi (AUC: 0.7723) and Irwinda (AUC: 0.6608). Levine's calculator slightly overestimated the risk of cesarean section at lower thresholds but underestimated the risk at higher threshold probabilities whereas Rossi's calculator underestimated the risk of cesarean section at all threshold probabilities above 11%.

Conclusion: The Levine and Rossi calculators have the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. However, these cannot be used individually for clinical decision making without prospective studies evaluating their clinical impact on pregnant women undergoing IOL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信