Bibliographic citations
Rubio, A., (2022). Eficacia del algoritmo de la fundación de medicina fetal para el cribado de preeclampsia durante el primer trimestre comparado con otros modelos: Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis [Tesis, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. Facultad de Medicina Humana]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/9358
Rubio, A., Eficacia del algoritmo de la fundación de medicina fetal para el cribado de preeclampsia durante el primer trimestre comparado con otros modelos: Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. Facultad de Medicina Humana; 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/9358
@misc{renati/373964,
title = "Eficacia del algoritmo de la fundación de medicina fetal para el cribado de preeclampsia durante el primer trimestre comparado con otros modelos: Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis",
author = "Rubio Yupanqui, Aldo Sebastián",
publisher = "Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. Facultad de Medicina Humana",
year = "2022"
}
To compare the efficacy of the Fetal Medicine Foundation algorithm with the efficacy of other models used for screening for preeclampsia during the first trimester. Material and Methods: Systematic review of diagnostic test studies in 6 databases. Two collaborators did the search, selection, data extraction, assessment of bias. The variables under study were the algorithm of the Fetal Medicine Foundation and preeclampsia. Statistical analysis of the selected studies was performed, first assessing the threshold effect using Roc curves and then using diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity and specificity). Results: Five studies were included in this review, four of which were prospective cohorts, including a population of 31,883 pregnant women. It was found that for preterm PE, the ““a priori““ FMF model obtained a sensitivity of 47% (95% CI 0.43- 0.51), the ““triple test““ FMF a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 0.66-0.73) and the FMF “quadruple test” a detection rate of 80% (95% CI 0.75-0.85); all using a 10% false positive rate. For PE at term, the ““a priori““ FMF model obtained a sensitivity of 41% (95% CI 0.36-0.45) and the ““quadruple test““ FMF a detection rate of 43% (95% CI 0.37-0.49); all using a 10% false positive rate. The remaining study was included for the descriptive analysis since it answered the question formulated by this research, the results of this research were given according to the Cohen Kappa coefficient (k), it was found that the concordance between the PERK vs VP algorithms was 0, 56 (95% CI: 0.46 - 0.66), for PERK and FMF there was a k equal to 0.50 (95% CI: 0.39 - 0.61) and for the cases of VP vs FMF the concordance it was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64 - 0.80). Conclusions: The algorithm proposed by the FMF for screening for preterm PE during the first trimester has good diagnostic performance compared to other models; but poor performance for PE at term
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License