Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of a clinical prediction model for perinatal deaths in low resource settings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Most pregnancy-related deaths in low and middle income countries occur around the time of birth and are avoidable with timely care. This study aimed to develop a prognostic model to identify women at risk of intrapartum-related perinatal deaths in low-resourced settings, by (1) external validation of an existing prediction model, and subsequently (2) development of a novel model.

          Methods

          A prospective cohort study was conducted among pregnant women who presented consecutively for delivery at the maternity unit of Zanzibar's tertiary hospital, Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, the Republic of Tanzania between October 2017 and May 2018. Candidate predictors of perinatal deaths included maternal and foetal characteristics obtained from routine history and physical examination at the time of admission to the labour ward. The outcomes were intrapartum stillbirths and neonatal death before hospital discharge. An existing stillbirth prediction model with six predictors from Nigeria was applied to the Zanzibar cohort to assess its discrimination and calibration performance. Subsequently, a new prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression. Model performance was evaluated through internal validation and corrected for overfitting using bootstrapping methods.

          Findings

          5747 mother-baby pairs were analysed. The existing model showed poor discrimination performance (c-statistic 0·57). The new model included 15 clinical predictors and showed promising discriminative and calibration performance after internal validation (optimism adjusted c-statistic of 0·78, optimism adjusted calibration slope =0·94).

          Interpretation

          The new model consisted of predictors easily obtained through history-taking and physical examination at the time of admission to the labour ward. It had good performance in predicting risk of perinatal death in women admitted in labour wards. Therefore, it has the potential to assist skilled birth attendance to triage women for appropriate management during labour. Before routine implementation, external validation and usefulness should be determined in future studies.

          Funding

          The study received funding from Laerdal Foundation, Otto Kranendonk Fund and UMC Global Health Fellowship. TD acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant 91617050).

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

          Multivariable regression models are powerful tools that are used frequently in studies of clinical outcomes. These models can use a mixture of categorical and continuous variables and can handle partially observed (censored) responses. However, uncritical application of modelling techniques can result in models that poorly fit the dataset at hand, or, even more likely, inaccurately predict outcomes on new subjects. One must know how to measure qualities of a model's fit in order to avoid poorly fitted or overfitted models. Measurement of predictive accuracy can be difficult for survival time data in the presence of censoring. We discuss an easily interpretable index of predictive discrimination as well as methods for assessing calibration of predicted survival probabilities. Both types of predictive accuracy should be unbiasedly validated using bootstrapping or cross-validation, before using predictions in a new data series. We discuss some of the hazards of poorly fitted and overfitted regression models and present one modelling strategy that avoids many of the problems discussed. The methods described are applicable to all regression models, but are particularly needed for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes. Methods are illustrated with a survival analysis in prostate cancer using Cox regression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration

            The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost?

              Progress in newborn survival has been slow, and even more so for reductions in stillbirths. To meet Every Newborn targets of ten or fewer neonatal deaths and ten or fewer stillbirths per 1000 births in every country by 2035 will necessitate accelerated scale-up of the most effective care targeting major causes of newborn deaths. We have systematically reviewed interventions across the continuum of care and various delivery platforms, and then modelled the effect and cost of scale-up in the 75 high-burden Countdown countries. Closure of the quality gap through the provision of effective care for all women and newborn babies delivering in facilities could prevent an estimated 113,000 maternal deaths, 531,000 stillbirths, and 1·325 million neonatal deaths annually by 2020 at an estimated running cost of US$4·5 billion per year (US$0·9 per person). Increased coverage and quality of preconception, antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal interventions by 2025 could avert 71% of neonatal deaths (1·9 million [range 1·6-2·1 million]), 33% of stillbirths (0·82 million [0·60-0·93 million]), and 54% of maternal deaths (0·16 million [0·14-0·17 million]) per year. These reductions can be achieved at an annual incremental running cost of US$5·65 billion (US$1·15 per person), which amounts to US$1928 for each life saved, including stillbirths, neonatal, and maternal deaths. Most (82%) of this effect is attributable to facility-based care which, although more expensive than community-based strategies, improves the likelihood of survival. Most of the running costs are also for facility-based care (US$3·66 billion or 64%), even without the cost of new hospitals and country-specific capital inputs being factored in. The maximum effect on neonatal deaths is through interventions delivered during labour and birth, including for obstetric complications (41%), followed by care of small and ill newborn babies (30%). To meet the unmet need for family planning with modern contraceptives would be synergistic, and would contribute to around a halving of births and therefore deaths. Our analysis also indicates that available interventions can reduce the three most common cause of neonatal mortality--preterm, intrapartum, and infection-related deaths--by 58%, 79%, and 84%, respectively. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                07 February 2022
                February 2022
                07 February 2022
                : 44
                : 101288
                Affiliations
                [a ]Julius Global Health, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
                [b ]Division of Woman and Baby, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [c ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar, Tanzania
                [d ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [e ]School of Health and Medical Sciences, State University of Zanzibar
                [f ]Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
                [g ]Village Health Works, Kigutu, Burundi
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Natasha Housseine, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Postal address: Huispost nr 1. STR 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands, Telephone number: +255 745 338950. n.housseine@ 123456umcutrecht.nl natasha.housseine@ 123456outlook.com
                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00018-9 101288
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101288
                8888338
                35252826
                5bd21107-e75b-40b6-93de-6e777094d701
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 4 June 2021
                : 19 December 2021
                : 17 January 2022
                Categories
                Articles

                prognostic model,stillbirth,neonatal death,low-resource setting,admission test,obstetric triage

                Comments

                Comment on this article