Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26809989›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

Socioeconomic inequalities in stillbirth rates in Europe: measuring the gap using routine data from the Euro-Peristat Project.

Jennifer Zeitlin, Laust Mortensen, Caroline Prunet, Alison Macfarlane, Ashna D Hindori-Mohangoo, Mika Gissler, Katarzyna Szamotulska, Karin van der Pal, Francisco Bolumar, Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Jennifer ZeitlinInserm UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, 53 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014, Paris, France. Jennifer.zeitlin@inserm.fr.
Laust MortensenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Caroline PrunetInserm UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, 53 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014, Paris, France.
Alison MacfarlaneCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University London, London, England.
Ashna D Hindori-MohangooDepartment of Child Health, TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mika GisslerTHL National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Katarzyna SzamotulskaDepartment of Epidemiology, National Research Institute of Mother and Child, Kasprzaka 17 a, 01-211, Warsaw, Poland.
Karin van der PalDepartment of Child Health, TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Francisco BolumarDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Anne-Marie Nybo AndersenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Helga Sól ÓlafsdóttirDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Landspitali University Hospital, Landspitali v/ Hringbraut, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Wei-Hong ZhangPerinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive Health Unit, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research Centre, School of Public Health, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Béatrice BlondelInserm UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, 53 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014, Paris, France.
Sophie AlexanderPerinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive Health Unit, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research Centre, School of Public Health, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Euro-Peristat Scientific Committee
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NLUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCity, University of London · GBFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIInserm · FRNational University Hospital of Iceland · ISSorbonne Paris Cité · FRUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have shown that socioeconomic position is inversely associated with stillbirth risk, but the impact on national rates in Europe is not known. We aimed to assess the magnitude of social inequalities in stillbirth rates in European countries using indicators generated from routine monitoring systems.

methodsAggregated data on the number of stillbirths and live births for the year 2010 were collected for three socioeconomic indicators (mothers' educational level, mothers' and fathers' occupational group) from 29 European countries participating in the Euro-Peristat project. Educational categories were coded using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) and analysed as: primary/lower secondary, upper secondary and postsecondary. Parents' occupations were grouped using International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) major groups and then coded into 4 categories: No occupation or student, Skilled/ unskilled workers, Technicians/clerical/service occupations and Managers/professionals. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for stillbirth by each occupational group as well as the percentage population attributable risks using the most advantaged category as the reference (post-secondary education and professional/managerial occupations).

resultsData on stillbirth rates by mothers' education were available in 19 countries and by mothers' and fathers' occupations in 13 countries. In countries with these data, the median RR of stillbirth for women with primary and lower secondary education compared to women with postsecondary education was 1.9 (interquartile range (IQR): 1.5 to 2.4) and 1.4 (IQR: 1.2 to 1.6), respectively. For mothers' occupations, the median RR comparing outcomes among manual workers with managers and professionals was 1.6 (IQR: 1.0-2.1) whereas for fathers' occupations, the median RR was 1.4 (IQR: 1.2-1.8). When applied to the entire set of countries with data about mothers' education, 1606 out of 6337 stillbirths (25 %) would not have occurred if stillbirth rates for all women were the same as for women with post-secondary education in their country.

conclusionsData on stillbirths and socioeconomic status from routine systems showed widespread and consistent socioeconomic inequalities in stillbirth rates in Europe. Further research is needed to better understand differences between countries in the magnitude of the socioeconomic gradient.

Indexed as

Socioeconomic FactorsAdultEducational StatusEuropeFathersFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLive BirthMaleMothersOccupationsOdds RatioPregnancyRisk FactorsStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID26809989
PMCPMC4727282
OpenAlexW2267744696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.