Preeclampsia screening evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 317, Issue 16, 2017, Pages 1668-1683

  Henderson, Jillian T ^a   Thompson, Jamie H ^a   Burda, Brittany U ^a   Cantor, Amy ^b  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECLAMPSIA; HUMAN; LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; POINT OF CARE TESTING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREECLAMPSIA; PREMATURE LABOR; PRENATAL CARE; PROTEINURIA; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STILLBIRTH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ADULT; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; FEMALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEWBORN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRE-ECLAMPSIA; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE BIRTH; RISK; STANDARDS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ADVISORY COMMITTEES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PRE-ECLAMPSIA; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE BIRTH; PRENATAL CARE; RISK; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85018306277     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.18315     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Hypertension in Pregnancy. Washington, DC:American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;2013.
2. Huppertz B. Placental origins of preeclampsia:challenging the current hypothesis. Hypertension. 2008;51(4):970-975.
3. Ghulmiyyah L, Sibai B. Maternal mortality frompreeclampsia/eclampsia. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36(1):56-59.
4. Ananth CV, Keyes KM, Wapner RJ. Pre-eclampsiarates in the United States, 1980-2010:age-period-cohort analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f6564.
5. Duley L, Meher S, Jones L. Drugs for treatmentof very high blood pressure during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7(7):CD001449.
6. Too GT, Hill JB. Hypertensive crisis duringpregnancy and postpartum period. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(4):280-287.
7. Altman D, Carroli G, Duley L, et al; Magpie TrialCollaboration Group. Do women withpre-eclampsia, and their babies, benefit frommagnesium sulphate? the Magpie Trial: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877-1890.
8. Magpie Trial Follow-Up Study CollaborativeGroup. The Magpie Trial: A randomised trialcomparingmagnesium sulphate with placebo forpre-eclampsia: Outcome for children at 18 months. BJOG. 2007;114(3):289-299.
9. Magpie Trial Follow-Up Study CollaborativeGroup. The Magpie Trial: A randomised trialcomparingmagnesium sulphate with placebo forpre-eclampsia: Outcome forwomen at 2 years. BJOG. 2007;114(3):300-309.
10. Duley L, Gülmezoglu AM, Henderson-Smart DJ, Chou D. Magnesium sulphate and otheranticonvulsants for women with pre-eclampsia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD000025.
11. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, et al;HYPITAT Study Group. Induction of labour versusexpectant monitoring for gestational hypertensionor mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation(HYPITAT): A multicentre, open-label randomisedcontrolled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9694):979-988.
12. Broekhuijsen K, van Baaren GJ, van Pampus MG, et al; HYPITAT-II Study Group. Immediate deliveryversus expectant monitoring for hypertensivedisorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeksof gestation (HYPITAT-II): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2492-2501.
13. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screeningfor preeclampsia. In: DiGiuseppi C, Atkins D, WoolfS, Kamerow D, eds. Guide to Clinical PreventiveServices. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams, Wilkins; 1996:419-424.
14. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al; MethodsWork Group, Third US Preventive Services TaskForce. Current methods of the US PreventiveServices Task Force: A review of the process. Am JPrev Med. 2001;20(3)(suppl):21-35.
15. US Preventive Services Task Force. ProcedureManual. Rockville, MD: Agency of HealthcareResearch and Quality; 2014.
16. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2014. Washington, DC:United Nations Development Programme; 2014.
17. Gillon TE, Pels A, von Dadelszen P, MacDonell K, Magee LA. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A systematic review of international clinical practiceguidelines. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e113715.
18. ACOG Committee on PracticeBulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin:diagnosis and management of preeclampsia andeclampsia: Number 33, January 2002. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(1):159-167.
19. Bujold E, Roberge S, Lacasse Y, et al. Preventionof preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restrictionwith aspirin started in early pregnancy:ameta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2, pt 1):402-414.
20. Moore GS, Allshouse AA, Post AL, Galan HL, Heyborne KD. Early initiation of low-dose aspirin forreduction in preeclampsia risk in high-risk women: A secondary analysis of the MFMU High-Risk AspirinStudy. J Perinatol. 2015;35(5):328-331.
21. Askie LM, Duley L, Henderson-Smart DJ, Stewart LA; PARIS Collaborative Group. Antiplateletagents for prevention of pre-eclampsia:ameta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2007;369(9575):1791-1798.
22. LeFevre ML; U. S. Preventive Services TaskForce. Low-dose aspirin use for the prevention ofmorbidity and mortality from preeclampsia: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendationstatement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):819-826.
23. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al;QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for thequality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
24. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessingthe quality of nonrandomised studies inmeta-analysis. http://www. ohri. ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford. asp. 2014. AccessedOctober 26, 2015.
25. Debray TP, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, NieboerD, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG. A new framework toenhance the interpretation of external validationstudies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(3):279-289.
26. Kleinrouweler CE, Cheong-See FM, Collins GS, et al. Prognostic models in obstetrics: Available, butfar from applicable. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(1):79-90.
27. Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematicreviews of prediction modelling studies: TheCHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001744.
28. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable predictionmodel for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis(TRIPOD): Explanation and elaboration. Ann InternMed. 2015;162(1):W1-W3.
29. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128-138.
30. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4:likelihood ratios. BMJ. 2004;329(7458):168-169.
31. McDuffie RS Jr, Beck A, Bischoff K, Cross J, Orleans M. Effect of frequency of prenatal carevisits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;275(11):847-851.
32. Farina A, Rapacchia G, Freni Sterrantino A, PulaG, Morano D, Rizzo N. Prospective evaluation ofultrasound and biochemical-based multivariablemodels for the prediction of late pre-eclampsia. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(12):1147-1152.
33. Oliveira N, Magder LS, Blitzer MG, Baschat AA. First-trimester prediction of pre-eclampsia: Externalvalidity of algorithms in a prospectively enrolledcohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(3):279-285.
34. Park FJ, Leung CH, Poon LC, Williams PF, Rothwell SJ, Hyett JA. Clinical evaluation of a firsttrimester algorithm predicting the risk ofhypertensive disease of pregnancy. Aust N Z JObstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(6):532-539.
35. Skråstad RB, Hov GG, Blaas HG, RomundstadPR, Salvesen KÅ. Risk assessment for preeclampsiain nulliparous women at 11-13 weeks gestationalage: Prospective evaluation of two algorithms[published online December 4, 2014]. BJOG. doi:10.1111/1471-052836.
36. Simeone S, Lojo C, Garcia-Esteve L, et al. Psychological impact of first-trimester preventionfor preeclampsia on anxiety. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(1):60-64.
37. Bhide A, Rana R, Dhavilkar M, Amodio-Hernandez M, Deshpande D, Caric V. The value of the urinary protein:creatinine ratio forthe detection of significant proteinuria in womenwith suspected preeclampsia. Acta Obstet GynecolScand. 2015;94(5):542-546.
38. Durnwald C, Mercer B. A prospectivecomparison of total protein/creatinine ratio versus24-hour urine protein in women with suspectedpreeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(3):848-852.
39. Dwyer BK, Gorman M, Carroll IR, Druzin M. Urinalysis vs urine protein-creatinine ratio topredict significant proteinuria in pregnancy. J Perinatol. 2008;28(7):461-467.
40. Kyle PM, Fielder JN, Pullar B, Horwood LJ, Moore MP. Comparison of methods to identifysignificant proteinuria in pregnancy in theoutpatient setting. BJOG. 2008;115(4):523-527.
41. Lamontagne A, Côté AM, Rey E. The urinaryprotein-to-creatinine ratio in Canadian women atrisk of preeclampsia: Does the time of day of testingmatter? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36(4):303-308.
42. Sethuram R, Kiran TS, Weerakkody AN. Is theurine spot protein/creatinine ratio a valid diagnostictest for pre-eclampsia? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(2):128-130.
43. Stout MJ, Scifres CM, Stamilio DM. Diagnosticutility of urine protein-to-creatinine ratio foridentifying proteinuria in pregnancy. J Matern FetalNeonatal Med. 2013;26(1):66-70.
44. Tun C, Quinoñes JN, Kurt A, Smulian JC, Rochon M. Comparison of 12-hour urine protein andprotein:creatinine ratio with 24-hour urine proteinfor the diagnosis of preeclampsia. Am J ObstetGynecol. 2012;207(3):233. e1-233. e8.
45. Verdonk K, Niemeijer IC, HopWC, et al. Variation of urinary protein to creatinine ratioduring the day in women with suspectedpre-eclampsia. BJOG. 2014;121(13):1660-1665.
46. Waugh J, Bell SC, KilbyM, Lambert P, ShennanA, Halligan A. Effect of concentration andbiochemical assay on the accuracy of urine dipsticksin hypertensive pregnancies. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20(2):205-217.
47. Waugh JJ, Bell SC, KilbyMD, et al. Optimalbedside urinalysis for the detection of proteinuria inhypertensive pregnancy: A study of diagnosticaccuracy. BJOG. 2005;112(4):412-417.
48. Wheeler TL II, Blackhurst DW, Dellinger EH, Ramsey PS. Usage of spot urine protein tocreatinine ratios in the evaluation of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5):465. e1-465. e4.
49. Young RA, Buchanan RJ, Kinch RA. Use of theprotein/creatinine ratio of a single voided urinespecimen in the evaluation of suspectedpregnancy-induced hypertension. J Fam Pract. 1996;42(4):385-389.
50. Rhode MA, Shapiro H, Jones OWIII. Indicatedvs. routine prenatal urine chemical reagent striptesting. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(3):214-219.
51. E Holanda Moura SB, Park F, Murthi P, et al. TNF-R1 as a first trimester marker for prediction ofpre-eclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(6):897-903.
52. Oliveira N, Doyle LE, Atlas RO, Jenkins CB, Blitzer MG, Baschat AA. External validity offirst-trimester algorithms in the prediction ofpre-eclampsia disease severity. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol. 2014;44(3):286-292.
53. Park F, Russo K, Williams P, et al. Prediction andprevention of early-onset pre-eclampsia: Impact ofaspirin after first-trimester screening. UltrasoundObstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):419-423.
54. Valdés E, Sepúlveda-Martínez Á, Tong A, CastroM, Castro D. Assessment of protein:creatinine ratioversus 24-hour urine protein in the diagnosis ofpreeclampsia [published online June 3, 2015]. Gynecol Obstet Invest. doi:10. 1159/000381773
55. Poon LC, StratievaV, Piras S, Piri S, Nicolaides KH. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: Combinedscreening by uterine artery Doppler, blood pressureand serum PAPP-Aat 11-13weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(3):216-223.
56. Onwudiwe N, Yu CK, Poon LC, Spiliopoulos I, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of pre-eclampsia by acombination of maternal history, uterine arteryDoppler and mean arterial pressure. UltrasoundObstet Gynecol. 2008;32(7):877-883.
57. Odibo AO, Zhong Y, Goetzinger KR, et al. First-trimester placental protein 13, PAPP-A, uterineartery Doppler and maternal characteristics in theprediction of pre-eclampsia. Placenta. 2011;32(8):598-602.
58. Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Poon L, Wright D, Nicolaides KH. Competing risks model in earlyscreening for preeclampsia by biophysical andbiochemical markers. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;33(1):8-15.
59. Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Leal A, Romero XC, Nicolaides KH. Hypertensive disorders inpregnancy: Screening by uterine artery Dopplerimaging and blood pressure at 11-13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(5):497-502.
60. Scazzocchio E, Figueras F, Crispi F, et al. Performance of a first-trimester screening ofpreeclampsia in a routine care low-risk setting. Am JObstet Gynecol. 2013;208(3):203. e1-203. e10.
61. Caradeux J, Serra R, Nien JK, et al. Firsttrimester prediction of early onset preeclampsiausing demographic, clinical, and sonographic data: A cohort study. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(8):732-736.
62. Parra-Cordero M, Rodrigo R, Barja P, et al. Prediction of early and late pre-eclampsia frommaternal characteristics, uterine artery Doppler andmarkers of vasculogenesis during first trimester ofpregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(5):538-544.
63. PlasenciaW, Maiz N, Bonino S, Kaihura C, Nicolaides KH. Uterine artery Doppler at 11 + 0 to 13+ 6 weeks in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30(5):742-749.
64. Poon LCY, Maiz N, Valencia C, PlasenciaW, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester maternal serumpregnancy-associated plasma protein-A andpre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(1):23-33.
65. PlasenciaW, Maiz N, Poon L, Yu C, NicolaidesKH. Uterine artery Doppler at 11 + 0 to 13+6weeksand 21 + 0 to 24+6weeks in the prediction ofpre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):138-146.
66. Wright D, Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH. A competing risks model in earlyscreening for preeclampsia. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012;32(3):171-178.
67. Poon LC, Kametas NA, Chelemen T, Leal A, Nicolaides KH. Maternal risk factors forhypertensive disorders in pregnancy: A multivariateapproach. J Hum Hypertens. 2010;24(2):104-110.
68. Woelkers D, Barton J, Dadelszen P, Sibai B. [71-OR]: The revised 2013 ACOG definitions ofhypertensive disorders of pregnancy significantlyincrease the diagnostic prevalence of preeclampsia[abstract]. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2015;5:38.
69. Bramham K, Parnell B, Nelson-Piercy C, SeedPT, Poston L, Chappell LC. Chronic hypertensionand pregnancy outcomes: Systematic review andmeta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g2301.
70. Siu AL; U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendationstatement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(10):778-786.
71. Higgins JR, de SwietM. Blood-pressuremeasurement and classification in pregnancy. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):131-135.
72. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, et al. Recommendations for blood pressuremeasurement in humans and experimental animals, part 1: Blood pressure measurement in humans: A statement for professionals from theSubcommittee of Professional and Public Educationof the American Heart Association Council on HighBlood Pressure Research. Circulation. 2005;111(5):697-716.
73. Thangaratinam S, CoomarasamyA, O'Mahony F, et al. Estimation of proteinuria as a predictor ofcomplications of pre-eclampsia: A systematicreview. BMC Med. 2009;7:10.
74. Morris RK, Riley RD, Doug M, Deeks JJ, KilbyMD. Diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein andalbumin to creatinine ratios for detection ofsignificant proteinuria or adverse pregnancyoutcome in patients with suspected pre-eclampsia:systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e4342.
75. Meyer NL, Mercer BM, Friedman SA, Sibai BM. Urinary dipstick protein: A poor predictor of absentor severe proteinuria. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(1, pt 1):137-141.
76. Waugh J, Maybury H, Shennan A. A prospectivecomparison of total protein/creatinine ratio versus24-hour urine protein in women with suspectedpreeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):1049-1050.
77. Côté AM, Brown MA, Lam E, et al. Diagnosticaccuracy of urinary spot protein:creatinine ratio forproteinuria in hypertensive pregnant women:systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7651):1003-1006.
78. Papanna R, Mann LK, Kouides RW, Glantz JC. Protein/creatinine ratio in preeclampsia: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):135-144.
79. Brunelli VB, Prefumo F. Quality of firsttrimester risk prediction models for pre-eclampsia: A systematic review. BJOG. 2015;122(7):904-914.
80. Al-Rubaie Z, Askie LM, Ray JG, Hudson HM, Lord SJ. The performance of risk prediction modelsfor pre-eclampsia using routinely collectedmaternal characteristics and comparison withmodels that include specialised tests and withclinical guideline decision rules: A systematic review. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1441-1452.
81. BouwmeesterW, Zuithoff NP, Mallett S, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical predictionresearch: A systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1-12.
82. Cnossen JS, ter Riet G, Mol BW, et al. Are testsfor predicting pre-eclampsia good enough to makescreening viable a review of reviews and criticalappraisal. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(7):758-765.
83. Chappell LC, Sandall J, BarnardAM, McManusRJ. Predicting pre-eclampsia. BMJ. 2015;351:h6349.
84. American College of Obstetricians andGynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 638:first-trimester risk assessment for early-onsetpreeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):e25-e27.
85. Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinicalresearch into clinical practice: Impact of usingprediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):201-209.
86. Bartsch E, Medcalf KE, Park AL, Ray JG; HighRisk of Pre-eclampsia Identification Group. Clinicalrisk factors for pre-eclampsia determined in earlypregnancy: Systematic review and meta-analysis oflarge cohort studies. BMJ. 2016;353:i1753.
87. Bartsch E, Park AL, Kingdom JC, Ray JG. Riskthreshold for starting low dose aspirin in pregnancyto prevent preeclampsia: An opportunity at a lowcost. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0116296.
88. Ioannidis JP, Tzoulaki I. What makes a goodpredictor? the evidence applied to coronary arterycalcium score. JAMA. 2010;303(16):1646-1647.
89. Grady D, Berkowitz SA. Why is a good clinicalprediction rule so hard to find, Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(19):1701-1702.
90. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiveroperating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007;115(7):928-935.