Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review. Issue 1 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lamain – de Ruiter, Marije; Kwee, Anneke; Naaktgeboren, Christiana; Franx, Arie; Moons, Karel; Koster, Maria
• Is Part Of: Diagnostic and prognostic research. Volume 1:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 9
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: First trimester -- Gestational diabetes -- Model -- Prediction -- Quality assessment -- Systematic review -- Validation; Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Prognosis -- Periodicals; Function tests (Medicine) -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; 616.07505
• DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0005-7
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2397-7523

Abstract

Abstract Background Numerous prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed, but their methodological quality is unknown. The objective is to systematically review all studies describing first-trimester prediction models for GDM and to assess their methodological quality. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until December 2014. Key words for GDM, first trimester of pregnancy, and prediction modeling studies were combined. Prediction models for GDM performed up to 14 weeks of gestation that only include routinely measured predictors were eligible. Data was extracted by the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Data on risk predictors and performance measures were also extracted. Each study was scored for risk of bias. Results Our search yielded 7761 articles, of which 17 were eligible for review (14 development studies and 3 external validation studies). The definition and prevalence of GDM varied widely across studies. Maternal age and body mass index were the most common predictors. Discrimination was acceptable for all studies. Calibration was reported for four studies. Risk of bias for participant selection, predictor assessment, and outcome assessment was low in general. Moderate to high risk of bias was seen for the number of events, attrition, and analysis. Conclusions Most studies showed moderate to low methodological quality, and few prediction models for GDM have been externally validated. External validation is recommended to enhance generalizability and assess their true value in clinical practice.