IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0315025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • An-Hao Liu
  • Bin Xu
  • Xiu-Wen Li
  • Yue-Wen Yu
  • Hui-Xin Guan
  • Xiao-Lu Sun
  • Yan-Zhen Lin
  • Li-Li Zhang
  • Xian-Di Zhuo
  • Jia Li
  • Wen-Qun Chen
  • Wen-Feng Hu
  • Ming-Zhu Ye
  • Xiu-Min Huang
  • Xun Chen

Abstract

Objective: As the first model in predicting the failure of early medical abortion (EMA) was inefficient, this study aims to develop and validate a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of EMAs more accurately in a clinical setting. Methods: The derivation cohort was obtained from a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. The clinically significant risk factors were identified and combined with their corresponding odds ratios to establish a risk assessment model. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings. The model’s performance was evaluated by an external validation cohort obtained from a tertiary hospital. The outcome was defined as the incidence of EMA failure. Results: A total of 126,420 patients who had undergone medical abortions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the pooled failure rate was 6.7%. The final risk factors consisted of gestational age, maternal age, parity, previous termination of pregnancy, marital status, type of residence, and differences between gestational age calculated using the last menstrual period and that measured via ultrasound. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings, with a maximum score of 19. The clinical prediction model exhibited a good discrimination, as validated by external verification (402 patients) with an area under the curve of 0.857 (95% confidence interval 0.804–0.910). The optimal cutoff value was determined to be 13.5 points, yielding a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 75.4%. Conclusion: This study effectively establishes a simple risk assessment model including seven routinely available clinical parameters for predicting EMA failure. In preliminary validation, this model demonstrates good performance in terms of predictive efficiency, accuracy, calibration, and clinical benefit. However, more research and validation are warranted for future application. Trial registration number: CRD42023485388.

Suggested Citation

  • An-Hao Liu & Bin Xu & Xiu-Wen Li & Yue-Wen Yu & Hui-Xin Guan & Xiao-Lu Sun & Yan-Zhen Lin & Li-Li Zhang & Xian-Di Zhuo & Jia Li & Wen-Qun Chen & Wen-Feng Hu & Ming-Zhu Ye & Xiu-Min Huang & Xun Chen, 2024. "Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-22, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315025
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315025
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315025&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0315025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.