CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01366443Updated Jul 31, 2012Results posted

Analysis of ROM Plus to Detect Rupture of Membranes

An observational study in Rupture of Amniotic Membranes, sponsored by Clinical Innovations, LLC. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 55 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2012-07-31.

Sponsored by Clinical Innovations, LLC · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
288
Ages
18 Years to 55 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Specific objectives include confirmation: i) that the ROM PLUS consistently and accurately diagnoses rupture of membranes (ROM), ii) that the technique can be understood and applied in clinical practice, and iii) that the ROM PLUS is easier to use than the conventional method.

Read the detailed description

This study is designed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of ROM PLUS- a rapid, point of care, qualitative immunochromatographic test for the detection (in vitro) of amniotic fluid in cervico-vaginal secretions of women with suspected rupture of membranes (ROM) during pregnancy. The ROM PLUS detects a specific Combo protein present in amniotic fluid of pregnant women in all trimesters of pregnancy. This specific protein combo is unique and found only in amniotic fluid, therefore can be used as a specific marker for the diagnosis of ROM. This biomarker is an isoform of a similar biomarkers called Amni-Sure and ActimProm and was recently approved by the FDA for clinical use. Like these protein markers ( AmniSure or ActimProm) which have been used to diagnose PROM, this particular protein isoform tested for ROM PLUS is in low concentration in other body fluids such as maternal blood, cord blood, urine and semen.

02

Conditions studied

  • Rupture of Amniotic Membranes

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • ROM PLUS
  • conventional clinical tests of rupture of membranes (ROM)
  • speculum exam
  • visualization of leakage
  • pooling of amniotic fluid in the posterior fornix
  • nitrazine testing
  • ferning
03

In context

Rupture

557 studies on the registry are indexed under Rupture; 97 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 288 is above the median of 100 across 203 observational studies indexed under Rupture.

Browse Rupture studies →

Lead sponsor

Clinical Innovations, LLC is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 55 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Healthy pregnant women between 15 or greater weeks gestation reporting with signs or symptoms of rupture of membranes.

Eligibility criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Known placental previa
  • Active vaginal bleeding
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
288 participants (actual)

Groups and cohorts

  • women pregnant

    Healthy pregnant women between 15 or greater weeks gestation reporting with signs or symptoms of rupture of membranes.

    Procedure: Sterile speculum exam · Procedure: ROM Plus Exam · Procedure: Chart Reveiw

Interventions

  • ProcedureSterile speculum exam

    Sterile vaginal speculum exam to include Nitrazine, ferning and pooling observations

  • ProcedureROM Plus Exam

    Vaginal swab exam for ROM Plus Test

  • ProcedureChart Reveiw

    Post delivery blinded chart review by expereienced obstetrician

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Pregnant Women Positive and Negative for Membrane Rupture Measured Via Clinical Assessment, Chart Review and ROM Plus

    Patients underwent two assessments to determine positive or negative membrane rupture status: (1) Standard clinical assessment using fluid leaking from the cervical os, or two of the following; pooling, positive nitrazine test, or ferning and (2) A new combination immunoassay ROM Plus containing a combination of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to Placental Protein 12 (PP12) and Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). Then, membrane rupture status was determined by chart review for reference based on a post delivery patient chart review by an experienced physician blinded to ROM Plus results.

    Time frame: 1 week

07

Results

Posted Jul 31, 2012

Participant flow

Patients recruited from July 2010 to May 2011 at three Medical Hospitals, Departments of Obstetric and Gynecology Labor and Delivery Wards.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneWomen Pregnant
Started288
Completed285
Not completed3
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up2
Withdrew: Under 18 yo1

Outcome measures

PrimaryPregnant Women Positive and Negative for Membrane Rupture Measured Via Clinical Assessment, Chart Review and ROM Plus

Patients underwent two assessments to determine positive or negative membrane rupture status: (1) Standard clinical assessment using fluid leaking from the cervical os, or two of the following; pooling, positive nitrazine test, or ferning and (2) A new combination immunoassay ROM Plus containing a combination of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to Placental Protein 12 (PP12) and Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). Then, membrane rupture status was determined by chart review for reference based on a post delivery patient chart review by an experienced physician blinded to ROM Plus results.

Time frame:
1 week
Reported as:
Number · participants
Pregnant Women Positive and Negative for Membrane Rupture Measured Via Clinical Assessment, Chart Review and ROM Plus
participantsPregnant Women (Clinical Assessment vs. Chart Review)Pregnant Women (ROM Plus vs. Chart Review)
True Negative Membrane Rupture95 (0.97 to 1.00)88
True Positive Membrane Rupture160187
False Negative Membrane Rupture29
False Positive Membrane Rupture281
Statistical analysis
  • Pregnant Women (Clinical Assessment vs. Chart Review) · Sensitivity: 0.85 · 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (Clinical Assessment vs. Chart Review) · Specificity: 0.98 · 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (Clinical Assessment vs. Chart Review) · Positive predictive value: 0.99 · 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (Clinical Assessment vs. Chart Review) · Negative predictive value: 0.77 · 95% CI 0.69 to 0.84The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (ROM Plus vs. Chart Review) · Sensitivity: 0.99 · 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (ROM Plus vs. Chart Review) · Specificity: 0.91 · 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (ROM Plus vs. Chart Review) · Positive predictive value: 0.95 · 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.
  • Pregnant Women (ROM Plus vs. Chart Review) · Negative predictive value: 0.99 · 95% CI 0.94 to 1.00The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the "Wilson" option.

Adverse events

Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Women Pregnant—0/288 (0%)0/288 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Women Pregnant
<=18 years1
Between 18 and 65 years287
>=65 years0
Age Continuous
Age Continuous(years)Women Pregnant
Mean27.26 ± 5.81
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Women Pregnant
Female288
Male0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Women Pregnant
United States288
08

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Utah Medical Center
    Salt Lake City, Utah 894132, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Lee SI, Park JS, Norwitz ER et al. Measurement of placental alpha-microglobulin-1 in cervicovaginal discharge to diagnose rupture of membranes, Obstet Gyencol 2007;109:634-40 Cousins, LM, Smok, P. Lovett, SM, Poeltler, DM. AmniSure Placental Alpha Microglobulin-1 Rapid Immunoassay versus Standard Diagnostic Methods for Detection of Rupture of Membranes. American J. of Perinatology. 2005;Vol.20:1-4. Caughey, AB., Robinson, JN., Norwitz, ER. Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;1(1):11-22.
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 31, 2012, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01366443
Lead sponsor
Clinical Innovations, LLC
Collaborators
Midwestern University, The Reading Hospital and Medical Center, University of Utah
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 6, 2011
Start date
Sep 2010
Primary completion
Apr 2012
Completion
Apr 2012
Results posted
Jul 31, 2012
Last update
Jul 31, 2012

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion