¹Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow Russia; ²Mytishchi municipal clinical hospital, Mytishchi, Moscow Region, Russia
Corresponding author: Aleksey A. Lukaev, PhD. Mytishchi municipal clinical hospital, Mytishchi, Moscow Region, Russia. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Published: June 20, 2016. DOI: 10.21103/Article6(2)_OA2
The aim of this study was to assess the role of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for evaluating the severity of the condition of preterm children, depending on perinatal risk (PR) factors, timing, and mode of delivery. In order to identify the thresholds for "intrapartum gain" of risk factors for timely selection of mode of delivery, we performed a comparative ROC analysis of the severity of the state of children at birth according to the Apgar score (AS), from 1 point in the first minute to 7 points in the fifth minute of life. The analysis of indicators of perinatal mortality (PM) and perinatal morbidity (PMb) shows a statistically significant difference (P<0.05) in the selection of the priority mode of delivery for women with premature birth during all analyzed gestation ages, depending on PR: frequency of PM and PMb is lower among pregnant women with a high risk who gave birth to premature babies delivered by C-section.
1.Baranov II, Skripnichenko YuP, Tokova ZZ, Kuz’mich IN.Medical and social aspects of preterm birth. Gynecology. 2014;5:90-93. [Article in Russian].
2.Ahmed AH, Sands LP. Effect of pre- and postdischarge interventions on breastfeeding outcomes and weight gain among premature infants. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2010;39(1):53-63.
3.Martin JA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preterm births - United States, 2007. MMWR Suppl. 2011 Jan 14; 60(1):78-9.
4.Maldybaeva EK, Dolgaya GV, Turdieva AS, Sarymsakova TA. Retrospective analysis of perinatal outcomes in women with preterm delivery. Vestnik KRSU. 2015; 15(4): 67-69.
5.Radzinsky VE, Knyazev CA, IN Kostin. Obstetric risk. Maximum of information - Mminimum of danger to the mother and baby. M.: Eksmo; 2009, 290 pp. [in Russian].
6.Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32:260-7.
7.The Apgar score. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 333. American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1209–12.
8.Florkowski CM. Sensitivity, specificity, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and likelihood ratios: communicating the performance of diagnostic tests. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008; 29 Suppl 1:S83-7.
9.Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007; 96(5):644-7.
The fully formatted PDF version is available.
Int J Biomed. 2016;6(2):106-109. © 2016 International Medical Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.