External validation of prognostic models to predict risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in one Dutch cohort: prospective multicentre cohort study

Objective To perform an external validation and direct comparison of published prognostic models for early prediction of the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, including predictors applicable in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Design External validation of all published prognostic models in large scale, prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Setting 31 independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands.

Participants Women recruited in their first trimester (<14 weeks) of pregnancy between December 2012 and January 2014, at their initial prenatal visit. Women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus of any type were excluded.

Main outcome measures Discrimination of the prognostic models was assessed by the C statistic, and calibration assessed by calibration plots.

Results 3723 women were included for analysis, of whom 181 (4.9%) developed gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. 12 prognostic models for the disorder could be validated in the cohort. C statistics ranged from 0.67 to 0.78. Calibration plots showed that eight of the 12 models were well calibrated. The four models with the highest C statistics included almost all of the following predictors: maternal age, maternal body mass index, history of gestational diabetes mellitus, ethnicity, and family history of diabetes. Prognostic models had a similar performance in a subgroup of nulliparous women only. Decision curve analysis showed that the use of these four models always had a positive net benefit.

Conclusions In this external validation study, most of the published prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus show acceptable discrimination and calibration. The four models with the highest discriminative abilities in this study cohort, which also perform well in a subgroup of nulliparous women, are easy models to apply in clinical practice and therefore deserve further evaluation regarding their clinical impact.

BMJ 2016;354:i4338

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s