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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2024-11, Vol.131 (12), p.1591-1602
Hauptverfasser: Ewington, Lauren, Black, Naomi, Leeson, Charlotte, Al Wattar, Bassel H., Quenby, Siobhan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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