Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Perinat Med ; 41(3): 233-40, 2013 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23314505

RESUMO

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of tests based on the detection of insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1) and placental α-microglobulin-1 (PAMG-1) in diagnosing rupture of fetal membranes (ROM) across different patient populations. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted on prospective observational or cohort studies investigating ROM tests based on the detection of IGFBP-1 and PAMG-1 meeting the following criteria: (1) performance metrics calculated by comparing results to an adequate reference method; (2) sensitivity thresholds of the investigated tests matching those of the currently available tests; (3) study population, as a minimum, included patients between 25 and 37 weeks of gestation. Sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Across all patient populations, the analyzed performance measures of the PAMG-1 test were significantly superior compared with those of the IGFBP-1 test. Of particular clinical relevance, PAMG-1 outperformed IGFBP-1 in the equivocal group, which comprised patients with uncertain rupture of membranes (sensitivity, 96.0% vs. 73.9%; specificity, 98.9% vs. 77.8%; PAMG-1 vs. IGFBP-1 tests, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with its performance in women with known membrane status, the accuracy of the IGFBP-1 test decreases significantly when used on patients whose membrane status is unknown. In this latter clinically relevant population, the PAMG-1 test has higher accuracy than the IGFBP-1 test.


Assuntos
Ruptura Prematura de Membranas Fetais/diagnóstico , Proteína 1 de Ligação a Fator de Crescimento Semelhante à Insulina/análise , Líquido Amniótico/química , Biomarcadores/análise , Colo do Útero/metabolismo , Erros de Diagnóstico , Feminino , Ruptura Prematura de Membranas Fetais/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Proteína 1 de Ligação a Fator de Crescimento Semelhante à Insulina/metabolismo , Gravidez , Vagina/metabolismo
2.
Reprod Sci ; 18(11): 1046-70, 2011 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22031189

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Understanding spontaneous preterm birth ([PTB] < 37 weeks) is difficult due to heterogeneities associated with multitudes of risk factors and pathophysiological pathways. Several biomarkers are routinely used clinically for predicting preterm labor; however, these factors are either nonspecific or detected too late. OBJECTIVE: Systematic review of literature on PTB biomarkers in the last 40 years to map out the existing knowledge and gaps in understanding PTB biomarkers. SEARCH STRATEGIES: Five electronic databases were searched for human studies on PTB biomarkers published in any language between 1965 and 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: The phenotype of interest for final data extraction was exclusively spontaneous PTB with no rupture of membranes. Data extraction included (a) general characteristics of the study (clinical setting, period, and study design), (b) study/participant characteristics (inclusion and exclusion criteria, race/ethnicity, number of participants, gestational age at sampling, (c) characteristics of the biomarker (type, rationale for its selection, type of biological sample, and assay used, and (d) concentration of biomarkers in cases and controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The search yielded 7255 citations and data were extracted from 217 articles which met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 116 different biomarkers were reported and these were assayed 578 times in the 217 included studies. Over two thirds of the 217 studies were performed on North American or European populations. No reliable biomarkers emerged as a risk predictor of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying similar studies on biomarkers for the prediction of PTB was a very challenging task due heterogeneities in study design, sampling issues (types, timing and processing), assay methods, and analyses. Major areas of concern identified in this review include poor phenotype definition, nonideal study designs and poor rationale for biomarker selection and assays and population stratification issues.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores , Nascimento Prematuro , Biomarcadores/análise , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Trabalho de Parto Prematuro , Gravidez , Controle de Qualidade , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores de Risco , Manejo de Espécimes/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa