Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M G Phipps

Publications and source records attributed to M G Phipps.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Progesterone, inhibin, and hCG multiple marker strategy to differentiate viable from nonviable pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combination of serum and urine biomarkers drawn from symptomatic pregnant women will help early differentiation of viable from nonviable pregnancies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 220 women who presented in the first trimester of pregnancy with complaints of pain, cramping, bleeding, or spotting. Serum samples for progesterone, inhibin A, and hCG, and urine beta-core hCG, were collected at presentation. To evaluate whether those biomarkers could predict viable and nonviable outcomes in pregnancy, we used likelihood ratios to compare operating characteristics of single and multiple biomarker strategies. RESULTS: Of 220 pregnancies studied, 98 were viable and 122 nonviable. Among single biomarkers, progesterone alone appears to have the greatest utility (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve = 0.923). Among dual-biomarker strategies, progesterone plus hCG and progesterone plus inhibin A improved specificity but not sensitivity. At 95% sensitivity, the combination of progesterone and hCG improved specificity from 0.29 to 0.66 (improvement = 0.37 [95% confidence interval 0.23, 0.52]). A triple-biomarker combination did not show substantial improvement over the dual-biomarker strategy. Also, combinations that used urine beta-core hCG did not improve diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Serum progesterone appeared to be the single most specific biomarker for distinguishing viable from nonviable pregnancies. When a dual-biomarker strategy was applied, combining serum progesterone with hCG, specificity improved significantly, which suggests that a multiple biomarker strategy might help distinguish viable from nonviable pregnancies in early gestation.

Adult↗

Observational studies.

Observational studies are important methodologies to evaluate exposures and risk factors that are not amenable to experimental trials. They offer the advantage of being more generalizable to our patients, as these studies may have more liberal inclusion criteria than the typical randomized trial. Their disadvantage is their susceptibility to biases and their inability to control for unknown factors that may impact on the outcome of interest. Establishing causality of an association noted in observational studies is an intricate process that requires careful assessment. Clinicians and researchers should be familiar with observational studies so they may better evaluate a proposed causal relationship and the quality of reports claiming such relationships. Only then can they determine if the findings are valid and applicable to their patient population.

Case-Control Studies↗