Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review
Background The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies. Objectives To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2024-11, Vol.131 (12), p.1591-1602 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1602 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 1591 |
container_title | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology |
container_volume | 131 |
creator | Ewington, Lauren Black, Naomi Leeson, Charlotte Al Wattar, Bassel H. Quenby, Siobhan |
description | Background
The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies.
Objectives
To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice.
Search strategy
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022.
Selection criteria
We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance.
Data collection and analysis
Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool).
Main results
A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre‐existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56–0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias.
Conclusions
There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.
Linked article: This article is commented on by Wilkinson p. 1603 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17818. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1471-0528.17802 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2955264993</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3114595319</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-46b8c5970be5f088c630fe7efe83906d2b3c0297156c04718327cf6cf24069b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkb1P5DAQxS3ECTigpkOWaGgC_ogdmw4Q9yVONEdtOc54ZeRsFjtZtP_9ObscBc25sTX-zdO8NwidUXJFy7mmdUMrIpi6oo0ibA8dfVT2t29SEc7UIfqa8wshVDLCD9AhV7UUtaBHaPF7imNY2xRsGwGvEnTBjWFY4n7oIGbsh4Q9jDbi3ro05KEPFttlh6NNC9h-LyCPdu4pkF3ADb7FeZNH6EvR4QTrAG8n6Iu3McPp-32Mnr89_Ln_UT0-ff95f_tYOd5QVtWyVU7ohrQgPFHKSU48NOBBcU1kx1ruCNMNFdKR4lRx1jgvnWc1kbrl_Bhd7nRXaXidymCmD9lBjHYJw5QN00IwWWs9oxef0JdhSsVENpzSWmjBqS7U9Y6azecE3qxS6G3aGErMvAMzJ27mxM12B6Xj_F13anvoPvh_oRdA7IC3EGHzPz1z9-tpJ_wXZbGPyQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3114595319</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Ewington, Lauren ; Black, Naomi ; Leeson, Charlotte ; Al Wattar, Bassel H. ; Quenby, Siobhan</creator><creatorcontrib>Ewington, Lauren ; Black, Naomi ; Leeson, Charlotte ; Al Wattar, Bassel H. ; Quenby, Siobhan</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies.
Objectives
To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice.
Search strategy
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022.
Selection criteria
We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance.
Data collection and analysis
Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool).
Main results
A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre‐existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56–0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias.
Conclusions
There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.
Linked article: This article is commented on by Wilkinson p. 1603 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17818.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-0328</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17802</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38465451</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Birth Weight ; Check lists ; Data collection ; estimated fetal weight ; Female ; fetal macrosomia ; Fetal Macrosomia - diagnosis ; Fetuses ; Gestational Age ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; large for gestational age ; prediction model ; Prediction models ; prediction tool ; Pregnancy</subject><ispartof>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2024-11, Vol.131 (12), p.1591-1602</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-46b8c5970be5f088c630fe7efe83906d2b3c0297156c04718327cf6cf24069b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-46b8c5970be5f088c630fe7efe83906d2b3c0297156c04718327cf6cf24069b33</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4735-2452 ; 0000-0003-3221-5471 ; 0000-0002-8869-606X ; 0000-0003-0805-6845 ; 0000-0001-8287-9271</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1471-0528.17802$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1471-0528.17802$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38465451$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ewington, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Black, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leeson, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Wattar, Bassel H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quenby, Siobhan</creatorcontrib><title>Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review</title><title>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</title><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><description>Background
The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies.
Objectives
To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice.
Search strategy
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022.
Selection criteria
We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance.
Data collection and analysis
Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool).
Main results
A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre‐existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56–0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias.
Conclusions
There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.
Linked article: This article is commented on by Wilkinson p. 1603 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17818.</description><subject>Birth Weight</subject><subject>Check lists</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>estimated fetal weight</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>fetal macrosomia</subject><subject>Fetal Macrosomia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Fetuses</subject><subject>Gestational Age</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>large for gestational age</subject><subject>prediction model</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>prediction tool</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkb1P5DAQxS3ECTigpkOWaGgC_ogdmw4Q9yVONEdtOc54ZeRsFjtZtP_9ObscBc25sTX-zdO8NwidUXJFy7mmdUMrIpi6oo0ibA8dfVT2t29SEc7UIfqa8wshVDLCD9AhV7UUtaBHaPF7imNY2xRsGwGvEnTBjWFY4n7oIGbsh4Q9jDbi3ro05KEPFttlh6NNC9h-LyCPdu4pkF3ADb7FeZNH6EvR4QTrAG8n6Iu3McPp-32Mnr89_Ln_UT0-ff95f_tYOd5QVtWyVU7ohrQgPFHKSU48NOBBcU1kx1ruCNMNFdKR4lRx1jgvnWc1kbrl_Bhd7nRXaXidymCmD9lBjHYJw5QN00IwWWs9oxef0JdhSsVENpzSWmjBqS7U9Y6azecE3qxS6G3aGErMvAMzJ27mxM12B6Xj_F13anvoPvh_oRdA7IC3EGHzPz1z9-tpJ_wXZbGPyQ</recordid><startdate>202411</startdate><enddate>202411</enddate><creator>Ewington, Lauren</creator><creator>Black, Naomi</creator><creator>Leeson, Charlotte</creator><creator>Al Wattar, Bassel H.</creator><creator>Quenby, Siobhan</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4735-2452</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-5471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-606X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0805-6845</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-9271</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202411</creationdate><title>Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review</title><author>Ewington, Lauren ; Black, Naomi ; Leeson, Charlotte ; Al Wattar, Bassel H. ; Quenby, Siobhan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-46b8c5970be5f088c630fe7efe83906d2b3c0297156c04718327cf6cf24069b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Birth Weight</topic><topic>Check lists</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>estimated fetal weight</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>fetal macrosomia</topic><topic>Fetal Macrosomia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Fetuses</topic><topic>Gestational Age</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>large for gestational age</topic><topic>prediction model</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>prediction tool</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ewington, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Black, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leeson, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Wattar, Bassel H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quenby, Siobhan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ewington, Lauren</au><au>Black, Naomi</au><au>Leeson, Charlotte</au><au>Al Wattar, Bassel H.</au><au>Quenby, Siobhan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><date>2024-11</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>131</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1591</spage><epage>1602</epage><pages>1591-1602</pages><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><eissn>1471-0528</eissn><abstract>Background
The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies.
Objectives
To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice.
Search strategy
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022.
Selection criteria
We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance.
Data collection and analysis
Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool).
Main results
A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre‐existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56–0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias.
Conclusions
There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.
Linked article: This article is commented on by Wilkinson p. 1603 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17818.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>38465451</pmid><doi>10.1111/1471-0528.17802</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4735-2452</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-5471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-606X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0805-6845</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-9271</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1470-0328 |
ispartof | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2024-11, Vol.131 (12), p.1591-1602 |
issn | 1470-0328 1471-0528 1471-0528 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2955264993 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Birth Weight Check lists Data collection estimated fetal weight Female fetal macrosomia Fetal Macrosomia - diagnosis Fetuses Gestational Age Humans Infant, Newborn large for gestational age prediction model Prediction models prediction tool Pregnancy |
title | Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T04%3A10%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multivariable%20prediction%20models%20for%20fetal%20macrosomia%20and%20large%20for%20gestational%20age:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=BJOG%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology&rft.au=Ewington,%20Lauren&rft.date=2024-11&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1591&rft.epage=1602&rft.pages=1591-1602&rft.issn=1470-0328&rft.eissn=1471-0528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17802&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3114595319%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3114595319&rft_id=info:pmid/38465451&rfr_iscdi=true |