A prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin, to predict preterm labour: the QUIDS meta-analysis and prospective cohort study

Stock, Sarah J; Horne, Margaret; Bruijn, Merel; White, Helen; Heggie, Robert; Wotherspoon, Lisa; Boyd, Kathleen; Aucott, Lorna; Morris, Rachel K; Dorling, Jon; Jackson, Lesley; Chandiramani, Manju; David, Anna; Khalil, Asma; Shennan, Andrew; Baaren, Gert-Jan van; Hodgetts-Morton, Victoria; Lavender, Tina; Schuit, Ewoud; Harper-Clarke, Susan; Mol, Ben; Riley, Richard D; Norman, Jane; Norrie, John

doi:10.3310/hta25520

Graphic version of this page | Change how these pages look

Journals Library

NHS NIHR - National Institute for Health Research

Journals

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Page Not Found

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Volume {{metadata.Volume}} >> Issue {{metadata.Issue}}
Extended Research Article
i

Toolkit

View Award

This study developed a prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, that showed excellent performance in predicting spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days.

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

Sarah J Stock ^1,^*, Margaret Horne ¹, Merel Bruijn ¹, Helen White ², Robert Heggie ³, Lisa Wotherspoon ⁴, Kathleen Boyd ³, Lorna Aucott ⁵, Rachel K Morris ⁶, Jon Dorling ⁷, Lesley Jackson ⁸, Manju Chandiramani ⁹, Anna David ¹⁰, Asma Khalil ¹¹, Andrew Shennan ¹², Gert-Jan van Baaren ¹³, Victoria Hodgetts-Morton ⁵, Tina Lavender ², Ewoud Schuit ¹⁴, Susan Harper-Clarke ¹⁵, Ben Mol ¹⁶, Richard D Riley ¹⁷, Jane Norman ⁴, John Norrie ¹

¹ Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
² Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
³ Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
⁴ Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen’s Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
⁵ Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
⁶ Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
⁷ Department of Neonatology, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
⁸ Department of Neonatology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Glasgow, UK
⁹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
¹⁰ Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
¹¹ Department of Fetal Medicine, St George’s Hospital, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
¹² Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
¹³ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
¹⁴ Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
¹⁵ Public and patient representative, Teddington, UK
¹⁶ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
¹⁷ Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
^* Corresponding author Email: sarah.stock@ed.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

[Image - Crossmark status check]

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*
Name (title, first name, last name)*
Occupation / Job title*
Affiliation / Employer*
Email*
Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas
Statement of competing interestsWe believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.
If yes, please provide details below
Enter response title*
Enter CAPTCHA What is nine minus one?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document