Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 18;45(6):381–393. doi: 10.1159/000490385

Table 4.

Predictive performance measures of the model of Syngelaki et al. [20] and effect of an intervention on preeclampsia incidence for different risk thresholds

Risk thresholda High risk, % (n/n) Sensitivity, % (n/n) Specificity, % (n/n) PPV, % (n/n) NPV, % (n/n) PE incidence reduction, % (NNP,n) Effect interventionb
RR 0.9 RR 0.8 RR 0.6
1.0% 76.2 (1,993/2,614) 98.7 (75/76) 24.4 (620/2,538) 3.8 (75/1,993) 99.8 (620/621) 9.9 (266) 19.7 (133) 39.5 (66)
2.0% 55.8 (1,459/2,614) 94.7 (72/76) 45.4 (1,151/2,538) 4.9 (72/1,459) 99.7 (1,151/1,155) 9.5 (203) 18.9(101) 37.9 (51)
3.0% 37.3 (974/2,614) 76.3 (58/76) 63.9 (1,622/2,538) 6.0 (58/974) 98.9 (1,622/1,640) 7.6 (168) 15.3 (84) 30.5 (42)
4.0% 20.2 (528/2,614) 53.9 (41/76) 80.8 (2,051/2,538) 7.8 (41/528) 98.3 (2,051/2,086) 5.4 (129) 10.8 (64) 21.6 (32)
5.0% 12.4 (323/2,614) 38.2 (29/76) 88.4 (2,244/2,538) 9.0 (29/323) 97.9 (2,244/2,291) 3.8 (111) 7.6 (56) 15.3 (28)
6.0% 8.6 (224/2,614) 17.1 (13/76) 91.7 (2,327/2,538) 5.8 (13/224) 97.4 (2,327/2,390) 1.7(172) 3.4 (86) 6.8 (43)

NNP, number needed to prevent; NPV, negative predictive value; PE, preeclampsia; PPV, positive predictive value; RR, risk reduction.

a

Predicted risk at or above this level was considered as high risk.

b

Intervention in all high-risk women.