BWJ Mol

BWJ Mol


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

31Years (1996-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2016 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BMBWJ Mol
BWJ Mol
CRClaire Roberts
Claire Roberts
STShakila Thangaratinam
Shakila Thangaratinam
LMLaura A Magee
Laura A Magee
CGChristianne J M de Groot
Christianne J M de Groot
GHG Justus Hofmeyr
G Justus Hofmeyr

1 November 2016 in Early Human Development
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ABAnouk Bokslag
Anouk Bokslag
MWMirjam Van Weissenbruch
Mirjam Van Weissenbruch
BMBWJ Mol
BWJ Mol
CGChristianne J.M. de Groot
Christianne J.M. de Groot

1 January 2013 in Human Reproduction Update
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSimone L. Broer
Simone L. Broer
JDJeroen van Disseldorp
Jeroen van Disseldorp
KBKimiko A. Broeze
Kimiko A. Broeze
MDMadeleine Dolleman
Madeleine Dolleman
BOBrent C. Opmeer
Brent C. Opmeer
BFBroekmans Frank
Broekmans Frank
Although ovarian reserve tests (ORTs) are frequently used prior to IVF treatment for outcome prediction, their added predictive value is unclear. We assessed the added value of ORTs to patient characteristics in the prediction of IVF outcome. An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis from published studies was performed. Studies on FSH, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) or antral follicle count (AFC) in women undergoing IVF were identified and authors were contacted. Using random intercept logistic regression models, we estimated the added predictive value of ORTs for poor response and ongoing pregnancy after IVF, relative to patient characteristics. We were able to collect 28 study databases, comprising 5705 women undergoing IVF. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for female age in predicting poor response was 0.61. AFC and AMH each significantly improved the model fit (P-value <0.001). Moreover, almost a similar accuracy was reached using AMH or AFC alone (AUC 0.78 and 0.76, respectively). Combining the two tests, however, did not improve prediction (AUC 0.80, P = 0.19) of poor response. In predicting ongoing pregnancy after IVF, age was the best single predictor (AUC 0.57), and none of the ORTs added any value. This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that AFC and AMH clearly add to age in predicting poor response. As single tests, AFC and AMH both fully cover the prediction of poor ovarian response. In contrast, none of the ORTs add any information to the limited capacity of female age to predict ongoing pregnancy after IVF. The clinical usefulness of ORTs prior to IVF will be limited to the prediction of ovarian response.

5 February 2018 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CHC. A. Vollgraff Heidweiller‐Schreurs
C. A. Vollgraff Heidweiller‐Schreurs
MBMarjon A. de Boer
Marjon A. de Boer
MHMartijn W. Heymans
Martijn W. Heymans
LSLinda J. Schoonmade
Linda J. Schoonmade
PBPatrick M. M. Bossuyt
Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
CBCaroline J. Bax
Caroline J. Bax
Objective: Doppler ultrasonographic assessment of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) is widely used as an adjunct to umbilical artery (UA) Doppler to identify fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. However, reported estimates of its accuracy vary considerably. The aim of this study was to review systematically the prognostic accuracies of CPR and MCA Doppler in predicting adverse perinatal outcome, and to compare these with UA Doppler, in order to identify whether CPR and MCA Doppler evaluation are of added value to UA Doppler.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, from inception to June 2016, for studies on the prognostic accuracy of UA Doppler compared with CPR and/or MCA Doppler in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy of any risk profile. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed using the QUADAS‐2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2) tool. Meta‐analysis was performed for multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Using hierarchal summary receiver–operating characteristics meta‐regression models, the prognostic accuracy of CPR vs MCA Doppler was compared indirectly, and CPR and MCA Doppler vs UA Doppler compared directly.Results: The search identified 4693 articles, of which 128 studies (involving 47 748 women) were included. Risk of bias or suboptimal reporting was detected in 120/128 studies (94%) and substantial heterogeneity was found, which limited subgroup analyses for fetal growth and gestational age. A large variation was observed in reported sensitivities and specificities, and in thresholds used. CPR outperformed UA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (as defined in the included studies) (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.003), but was comparable to UA Doppler for the other outcomes. MCA Doppler performed significantly worse than did UA Doppler in the prediction of low Apgar score (P = 0.017) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.034). CPR outperformed MCA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.013).Conclusion: Calculating the CPR with MCA Doppler can add value to UA Doppler assessment in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy. However, it is unclear to which subgroup of pregnant women this applies. The effectiveness of the CPR in guiding clinical management needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. © 2017 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

2 September 2019 in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FGfor the International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group
for the International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group
EREwelina Rogozińska
Ewelina Rogozińska
JZJavier Zamora
Javier Zamora
NMNadine Marlin
Nadine Marlin
ABAna Pilar Betrán
Ana Pilar Betrán
STShakila Thangaratinam
Shakila Thangaratinam
High Body Mass Index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) affect an increasing number of pregnancies. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued recommendations on the optimal GWG for women according to their pre-pregnancy BMI (healthy, overweight or obese). It has been shown that pregnant women rarely met the recommendations; however, it is unclear by how much. Previous studies also adjusted the analyses for various women’s characteristics making their comparison challenging. We analysed individual participant data (IPD) of healthy women with a singleton pregnancy and a BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 or more from the control arms of 36 randomised trials (16 countries). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the association between GWG outside (above or below) the IOM recommendations (2009) and risks of caesarean section, preterm birth, and large or small for gestational age (LGA or SGA) infants. The association was examined overall, within the BMI categories and by quartile of GWG departure from the IOM recommendations. We obtained aOR using mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for the within-study clustering and a priori identified characteristics. Out of 4429 women (from 33 trials) meeting the inclusion criteria, two thirds gained weight outside the IOM recommendations (1646 above; 1291 below). The median GWG outside the IOM recommendations was 3.1 kg above and 2.7 kg below. In comparison to GWG within the IOM recommendations, GWG above was associated with increased odds of caesarean section (aOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.25, 1.80), LGA (2.00; 1.58, 2.54), and reduced odds of SGA (0.66; 0.50, 0.87); no significant effect on preterm birth was detected. The relationship between GWG below the IOM recommendation and caesarean section or LGA was inconclusive; however, the odds of preterm birth (1.94; 1.31, 2.28) and SGA (1.52; 1.18, 1.96) were increased. Consistently with previous findings, adherence to the IOM recommendations seem to help achieve better pregnancy outcomes. Nevertheless, even in the context of clinical trials, women find it difficult to adhere to them. Further research should focus on identifying ways of achieving a healthier GWG as defined by the IOM recommendations.

16 May 2020 in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JDJames M.N. Duffy
James M.N. Duffy
ACAlexandra E. Cairns
Alexandra E. Cairns
DRDan Richards‐Doran
Dan Richards‐Doran
JHJanneke van 'T Hooft
Janneke van 'T Hooft
CGChris Gale
Chris Gale
T(the International Collaboration to Harmonise Outcomes for Pre‐eclampsia (iHOPE)
the International Collaboration to Harmonise Outcomes for Pre‐eclampsia (iHOPE)
Objective: To develop a core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia.Design: Consensus development study.Setting: International.Population: Two hundred and eight‐one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated.Methods: Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.Results: A long‐list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre‐eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in‐depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre‐eclampsia. Forty‐seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small‐for‐gestational‐age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support.Conclusions: The core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies.Tweetable 281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.]