Human participants research checklist.

<div><p>Objective</p><p>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.</p><p>Methods</p><p>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.</p><p>Results</p><p>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%.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>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.</p><p>Trial registration number</p><p><a href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023485388" target="_blank">CRD42023485388</a>.</p></div>

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2024-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315025.s002
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Contraception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human participants research checklist.

Figshare
Reproductive Health and Contraception
article

Human participants research checklist.

article en

Abstract

<div><p>Objective</p><p>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.</p><p>Methods</p><p>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.</p><p>Results</p><p>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%.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>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.</p><p>Trial registration number</p><p><a href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023485388" target="_blank">CRD42023485388</a>.</p></div>

Figshare
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Reproductive Health and Contraception
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.