rss
J Clin Pathol 2006;59:753-758 doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.034280
  • Original article

Weight correction of MoM values: which method?

  1. T M Reynolds1,
  2. G Vranken2,
  3. J Van Nueten2
  1. 1Queens Hospital, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, UK; Division of Clinical Sciences, Wolverhampton University, Wolverhampton, UK
  2. 2Analis NV, Gent, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to:
 T M Reynolds
 Clinical Chemistry Department, Queen’s Hospital, Belvedere Road, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire DE13 0RB, UK; tim.reynolds{at}burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 24 January 2006
  • Published Online First 7 April 2006

Abstract

Background: Adjusting maternal serum markers for maternal weight is considered to be a standard practice when screening for pregnancies associated with Down’s syndrome. The choice of model for taking maternal weight into account is, however, rarely explicitly evaluated.

Method: The relationship between the maternal serum markers αfetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and unconjugated oestriol (uE3), determined with the Beckman Coulter access reagents and maternal weight was investigated in a cohort of 752 Belgian women being screened for pregnancy associated with Down’s syndrome. Two different models (the log–linear equation and the linear–reciprocal equation) were used to determine the relationship between the serum markers and maternal weight.

Results: A significant relationship between log10 multiples of median (MoM) values and weight (kg) was obtained for all markers, and the log–linear model had higher coefficients of determination (r2) when compared with the linear–reciprocal model. Weight correction with either method achieved the optimum effect that the correction factor for a woman with a population median weight of 65.5 kg was not significantly different from 1. Simulated weight-corrected MoM values with the two approaches were compared and variation was estimated. The mean difference between the weight-corrected MoM values calculated by the two methods was 7.8% (SD 4.3%) for AFP, 14.0% (4.4%) for HCG and 5.9% (3.2%) for uE3. This resulted in a difference in risk estimate of 1.66–5.34% for Down’s syndrome owing to weight correction algorithm differences in women of median weight.

Conclusion: The log–linear weight correction approach was shown to be marginally more effective by a goodness-of-fit analysis. Differences in weight-corrected MoM values estimated with the two approaches are highly significant (p<0.0001, Wilcoxon’s paired sample test), but the effect on risk calculation was not significant. It was observed that the changes in risk became significant the more the MoM correction factors deviated from 1.

Footnotes

  • Published Online First 13 April 2006

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. jcp.2005.034280v1
    2. jcp.2005.034280v2
    3. 59/7/753 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.