Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Antenatal Risk Scoring Systems in India to Predict Adverse Neonatal Outcomes

Abstract

Background

The purpose of antenatal care (ANC) is to identify ‘at-risk’ pregnant women, to provide quality care for all, and maximize the allocation of resources for those who need them the most. To address the synergistic effect of risk factors, clinicians across the globe developed antenatal scoring systems.

Objective

This review aims to investigate various antenatal risk scoring systems developed and used in India to predict adverse neonatal outcome.

Methods

We reviewed articles published between January 2000 and April 2020, which have either developed a scoring system or used a scoring system, among the Indian population. This systematic review is reported based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was employed for the assessment of the quality of included studies. Data sources such as Embase, MEDLINE/Pubmed, APA PsycExtra, PsycINFO, CINHAL Plus, Cochrane Library, IndMED, LILACS, Scopus, WHO Reproductive Health Library and Web of science were searched.

Results

An initial search retrieved a total of 6246 articles. This systematic review identified six studies, of which one study developed an antenatal scoring system and the other five studies used two antenatal systems for predicting adverse neonatal outcome. The study which developed a risk scoring system had a high risk of bias (ROB) and concern for applicability. The overall sensitivity of the antenatal scoring system was high (77.4%), but the specificity was low (45%). Similarly, the positive predictive value is low (15.3%), and the negative predictive value is high (94.2%). A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the heterogeneity of the studies and insufficient data.

Conclusions

There is a need for a systematically developed antenatal scoring system for India. Such scoring systems can be promising in public health, proposing a paradigm shift in the implementation of effective mother and child health programmes locally as well as nationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Lilford RJ, Chard T. Problems and pitfalls of risk assessment in antenatal care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90(6):507–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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(1):23–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar MP, Gnanadeep TNV, Dixit UR, Patil PS. Prevalence of high risk pregnancy In rural Dharwad. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2015;14(10):2279–861.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Majella MG, Sarveswaran G, Krishnamoorthy Y, Sivaranjini K, Arikrishnan K, Kumar SG. A longitudinal study on high risk pregnancy and its outcome among antenatal women attending rural primary health centre in Puducherry. South India. J Educ Health Promot. 2019;8:12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burstyn I. Antepartum Risk Score Predicts Adverse Birth Outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada [Internet]. 2010;32(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34398-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Parboosingh IJ. The role of standardized risk assessment in the provision of prenatal care. Can Fam Physician. 1986;32:2115–21120.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodwin JW, Dunne JT, Bruce TW. Antepartum Identification of the Fetus at Risk. Canad Med Ass J. 1969;101:57–67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Haj HIE, ML and NR. . Quality of care between the DONABEDIAN model and the ISO9001v2008 model. Int J Qual Res. 2013;7(1):17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hall PF. Rethinking risk. Vol. 40, Canadian Family Physician. 1994.

  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lata KM, Talsania N. Study of Evaluation and Prediction of Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality using ICMR Antenatal Scoring Method. Indian J Community Med. 2001;26(4):176–82.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mufti S, Mufti S. Indian Journal for the Practising Doctor Original Paper Identification of High Risk Pregnancy by a Scoring System and its Correlation with Perinatal Outcome. 2008;5 (1).

  15. Bala K, Kumar T, Kumar D, Mengi V. Study of pregnancy outcome using ICMR antenatal scoring method. INDIAN J Matern CHILD Heal. 2012;14 (2).

  16. Anand B, Mansukhani C, Gujral K, Pradhan M. Importance of developing a new modified high risk pregnancy. 2017;7 (1).

  17. Kolluru V, Reddy A. Study of high risk scoring in pregnancy and perinatal outcome. 2016;3(4):407–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mondal L, Vahitha S, Kubera NS. Identification of high risk pregnancy by a scoring system and its association with perinatal outcome of mothers admitted in antenatal ward. Int J Sci Res. 2019;8(9):82–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Datta S, Das KS. Identification of High Risk Mothers by a Scoring System and its Correlation with Perinatal Outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 1989;40:181–90.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ian Morrison M, Joan OR. Perinatal Mortality and Antepartum Risk Scoring. Obs Gynecol. 1979;53(3):362–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ICMR New Delhi. ICMR comprehensive care of mother and children (Intervention Phase) written communication. 1986;

  22. Krishnan V, Idris MZ, Srivastava VK, Bhushan V, Chandra MR. Scoring of high risk mothers and related outcome. Indian J community Med. 1988;13(4):176–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Herman AA, Irwig LM, Groeneveld HT. Evaluating obstetric risk scores by receiver operating characteristic curves. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;127(4):831–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(9):999–1001.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Posthumus AG, Birnie E, van Veen MJ, Steegers EAP, Bonsel GJ. An antenatal prediction model for adverse birth outcomes in an urban population: The contribution of medical and non-medical risks. Midwifery [Internet]. 2015;38:78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Trevethan R. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Front Public Heal. 2017;5(November):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gomez JL, Young BK. A weighted risk index for antenatal prediction of perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 2002;30(2):137–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Risso SdeP, Nascimento LFC. Risk factors for neonatal death in neonatal intensive care unit according to survival analysis. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2010;22(1):19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chard T, Carroll S. A computer model of antenatal care: relationship between the distribution of obstetric risk factors in simulated cases and in a real population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1990;35(1):51–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the steering committee members for their valuable inputs and suggestions.

Funding

This systematic review did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All the authors conceived and designed the study. DRP, SK and SKK developed the search strategy. DRP and SKK conducted the search strategy. DRP and SK independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility and extracted relevant data. VBB was the third reviewer to resolve any disagreements. DRP and VBB drafted the manuscript. All the authors reviewed, gave feedback and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dinesh Raj Pallepogula.

Ethics declarations

Registrations

The systematic review was registered with International Prospective Registering of Systematic Reviews–PROSPERO (CRD42019108083).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pallepogula, D.R., Bethou, A., Ballambatu, V.B. et al. A Systematic Review of Antenatal Risk Scoring Systems in India to Predict Adverse Neonatal Outcomes. J Obstet Gynecol India 72, 181–191 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01484-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01484-z

Keywords

  • Antenatal risk scoring
  • Risk score development
  • High-risk pregnancy
  • Systematic review
  • India