Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 21.
doi: 10.1038/s41372-025-02316-y. Online ahead of print.

Comparison of first trimester preeclampsia combined screening performances with various approaches in the Indonesian population

Adly Nanda Al Fattah  1   2 , Muhammad Pradhiki Mahindra  3   4 , Mirani Ulfa Yusrika  1 , Muhammad Pradhika Mapindra  1   5 , Felix Firyanto Widjaja  1 , Vania Permata Putri  1   2 , Shinda Marizni  1 , Sara L Hillman  5 , Raden Aditya Kusuma  1   6
Affiliations

Comparison of first trimester preeclampsia combined screening performances with various approaches in the Indonesian population

Adly Nanda Al Fattah et al. J Perinatol. .

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF), Indonesian Maternal and Children Health Handbook (MCH-HB), and Indonesian Prenatal Institute (IPI) models for predicting PE.

Materials/subjects and methods: Maternal risk factors, biophysical, and biochemical markers were recorded from women screened for PE at 11-14 gestational weeks. The receiving operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the detection rate (DR) among prediction models.

Results: For all PE at a 10% false-positive rate (FPR), FMF had a DR 62.9%; MCH-HB had a DR 50.0%; IPI had a DR 66.9%. For early-onset PE, at 10% FPR FMF had a DR 80.3%; MCH-HB had a DR 71.4%; IPI had a DR 81.5%. For preterm PE at 10% FPR, FMF had a DR 70.2%; MCH-HB had a DR 38.5%; IPI had a DR 66.9%.

Discussion: IPI algorithm is comparable to FMF and outperforms MCH-HB algorithm for all, early-onset, and preterm PE screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval: All study procedures including data collection and participant recruitment were approved by the institutional; review board of Yayasan penelitian dan pengembangan obstetrik Indonesia (reference number 006.ETIK-YPPOI.V.2024).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Khan B, Allah Yar R, Khakwani A, khan, Karim S, Arslan Ali H. Preeclampsia Incidence and Its Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes With Associated Risk Factors. Cureus. 2022;14:e31143. - PubMed - PMC
    1. Osungbade KO, Ige OK. Public health perspectives of preeclampsia in developing countries: implication for health system strengthening. J Pregnancy. 2011;2011:481095. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Karrar SA, Hong PL. Preeclampsia. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
    1. Serra B, Mendoza M, Scazzocchio E, Meler E, Nolla M, Sabrià E, et al. A new model for screening for early-onset preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222:608.e1–608.e18. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Research and Development Ministry of Health Republic Indonesia. Basic Health Research; RISKESDAS. Jakarta: Research and Development Ministry of Health Republic Indonesia; 2018.

LinkOut - more resources