Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:59:19.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Obstetric risk scores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

T Chard
T Chard*
Affiliation:
St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College and the London Hospital Medical College, London, UK
*
Professor T Chard, Department of Reproductive Physiology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College, London EC1A 7BE, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Risk is defined as the probability of an untoward event. In fetal medicine this event is one or more of the outcomes listed in Table 1. The aim of antenatal care is to predict these events and thereby, hopefully, to avoid them.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lilford, RJ, Chard, T. The use of a small computer to provide action suggestions in the booking clinic. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn 1984; 36: 119–25.Google ScholarPubMed
2 Chard, T, Harding, S, Carroll, S, Hudson, CN, Lloyd, DSL, Sloan, D. A comparison of different methods for calculating overall risk scores from risk factors ascertained in a computerized obstetric information system. J Perinat Med 1990; 18: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Main, DM, Gabbe, S. Risk scoring for preterm labor: where do we go from here? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 789–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Newcombe, RG, Chalmers, I. Assessing the risk of preterm labour. In: Elder, MG, Hendriks, C eds, Preterm Labour. London: Butterworths; 1981.Google Scholar
5 Keirse, JNC. An evaluation of formal risk scoring for preterm birth. Am J Perinatol 1989; 6: 226–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Goodwin, JW, Dunne, JT, Thomas, BW. Antepartum identification of the fetus at risk. Can Med Assoc J 1969; 101: 57–67.Google ScholarPubMed
7 Nesbit, T, Aubrey, RH. High risk obstetrics. II: Value of semiobjective granding system in identifying the vulnerable group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969; 103: 972–85.Google Scholar
8 Hobel, CJ, Hyvarinen, MA, Okada, D, Ho, W. Prenatal and intrapartum high-risk screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 117: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Kaminski, M, Goujard, J, Rumeau-Roquette, C. Prediction of low birthweight and prematurity by a multiple regression analysis with maternal characteristics known since the beginning of pregnancy. Int J Epidemiol 1973; 2: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Haeri, AD, South, J, Naldrett, J. A scoring system for identifying pregnancy patients with a high risk of perinatal mortality. J Obstet Gynaecol Brit Cmwlth 1974; 81: 535–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Coopland, AT, Peddle, LJ, Baskett, TF, Rollwagen, R, Simpson, A, Parker, E. A simplified antepartum high-risk pregnancy scoring form: statistical analysis of 5459 cases. Can Med Assoc J 1977; 116: 999–1011.Google Scholar
12 Ahktar, J, Sehgal, NN. Prognostic value of a prepartum and intrapartum risk-scoring method. South Med J 1980; 73: 411–14.Google Scholar
13 Creasy, RK, Gummer, BA, Liggins, GC. System for predicting preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55: 692–95.Google Scholar
14 Herron, MA, Katz, M, Creasy, RK. Evaluation of preterm birth prevention program: preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59: 452–55.Google ScholarPubMed
15 Ross, MG, Calvin, MPH, Hobel, CJ, Bragonier, JR, Bear, MB, Bemis, RL. A simplified risk-scoring system for prematurity. Am J Perinatol 1986; 3: 339–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Main, DM, Richardson, D, Gabbe, SG, Strong, S, Weller, S. Prospective evaluation of a risk scoring system for predicting preterm delivery in black inner city women. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 61–66.Google ScholarPubMed
17 Mueller-Heubach, E, Guzick, SD. Evaluation of risk scoring in preterm birth prevention study of indigent parents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 829–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Owen, J, Goldenberg, RJ, Davis, RO, Kirk, KA, Copper, RL. Evaluation of a risk scoring system as a predictor of preterm birth in an indigent population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 183: 873–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Chard, T, Learmont, J, Carroll, S, Hudson, CN, Lloyd, DS, Sloan, D. Evaluation of a fetal risk-scoring system. Am J Perinatol 1991 (in press).Google Scholar
20 Dalton, KJ, Chard, T. Computers in obstetrics and gynecology. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
21 Chard, T. The effect of dependence on the performance of Bayes’ theorem: an evaluation using a computer simulation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1980; 29: 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Brand, R, Keirse, MJNC. Using logistic regression in perinatal epidemiology: an introduction for clinical researchers. Part 1: basic concepts. Paed Perinat Epidemiol 1990; 4: 22–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Carroll, S, Chard, T, Lloyd, DSL et al. Preparation of risk cards using a computerized obstetric information system. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 8: 222–27.Google Scholar
24 Tyrrell, S, Obaid, AH, Lilford, RJ. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry as a predictor of fetal hypoxia and acidosis at birth. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 332–39.Google ScholarPubMed
25 Oakley, A, Rajan, L, Grant, A. Social support and pregnancy outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 155–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Murray, JL, Bernfield, M. The differential effect of prenatal care on the incidence of low birth weight among blacks and whites in a prepaid health care plan. New Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar