Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Objective To investigate if cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) adds to the predictive value of umbilical artery pulsatility index (UA PI) alone – standard of practice – for adverse perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancies. Design and setting Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD). Population or sample Ten centres provided 17 data sets for 21 661 participants, 18 731 of which could be included. Sample sizes per data set ranged from 207 to 9215 individuals. Patient populations varied from uncomplicated to complicated pregnancies. Methods In a collaborative, pooled analysis, we compared the prognostic value of combining CPR with UA PI, versus UA PI only and CPR only, with a one-stage IPD approach. After multiple imputation of missing values, we used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to develop prediction models. We evaluated the classification performance of all models with receiver operating characteristics analysis. We performed subgroup analyses according to gestational age, birthweight centile and estimated fetal weight centile. Main outcome measures Composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal death, caesarean section for fetal distress or neonatal unit admission. Results Adverse outcomes occurred in 3423 (18%) participants. The model with UA PI alone resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.775 (95% CI 0.709–0.828) and with CPR alone in an AUC of 0.778 (95% CI 0.715–0.831). Addition of CPR to the UA PI model resulted in an increase in the AUC of 0.003 points (0.778, 95% CI 0.714–0.831). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Conclusions Cerebroplacental ratio added no predictive value for adverse perinatal outcome beyond UA PI, when assessing singleton pregnancies, irrespective of gestational age or fetal size

Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Objective To investigate if cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) adds to the predictive value of umbilical artery pulsatility index (UA PI) alone – standard of practice – for adverse perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancies. Design and setting Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD). Population or sample Ten centres provided 17 data sets for 21 661 participants, 18 731 of which could be included. Sample sizes per data set ranged from 207 to 9215 individuals. Patient populations varied from uncomplicated to complicated pregnancies. Methods In a collaborative, pooled analysis, we compared the prognostic value of combining CPR with UA PI, versus UA PI only and CPR only, with a one-stage IPD approach. After multiple imputation of missing values, we used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to develop prediction models. We evaluated the classification performance of all models with receiver operating characteristics analysis. We performed subgroup analyses according to gestational age, birthweight centile and estimated fetal weight centile. Main outcome measures Composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal death, caesarean section for fetal distress or neonatal unit admission. Results Adverse outcomes occurred in 3423 (18%) participants. The model with UA PI alone resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.775 (95% CI 0.709–0.828) and with CPR alone in an AUC of 0.778 (95% CI 0.715–0.831). Addition of CPR to the UA PI model resulted in an increase in the AUC of 0.003 points (0.778, 95% CI 0.714–0.831). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Conclusions Cerebroplacental ratio added no predictive value for adverse perinatal outcome beyond UA PI, when assessing singleton pregnancies, irrespective of gestational age or fetal size

A multidimensional approach to older patients during COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper of the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic trigger that has challenged the intrinsic capacity of older adults and of society. Due to the consequences for the older population worldwide, the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) took the initiative of collecting evidence on the usefulness of the CGA-based multidimensional approach to older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A narrative review of the most relevant articles published between January 2020 and November 2022 that focused on the multidimensional assessment of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Current evidence supports the critical role of the multidimensional approach to identify older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at higher risk of longer hospitalization, functional decline, and short-term mortality. This approach appears to also be pivotal for the adequate stratification and management of the post-COVID condition as well as for the adoption of preventive measures (e.g., vaccinations, healthy lifestyle) among non-infected individuals. Conclusion: Collecting information on multiple health domains (e.g., functional, cognitive, nutritional, social status, mobility, comorbidities, and polypharmacy) provides a better understanding of the intrinsic capacities and resilience of older adults affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The EuGMS SIG on CGA endorses the adoption of the multidimensional approach to guide the clinical management of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older people : an umbrella review of health outcomes

Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older Methods: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results: Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions: CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings