Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32212268›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Death audits and reviews for reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality.

Merlin L Willcox, Jessica Price, Sophie Scott, Brian D Nicholson, Beth Stuart, Nia W Roberts, Helen Allott, Vincent Mubangizi, Alexandre Dumont, Anthony Harnden

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07560839 (Accelerating Maternal and Newborn Survival), which is not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
19.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07560839 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Accelerating Maternal and Newborn Survival: The AMANI Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WashingtonRan2026 to 2029Enrolled260ConditionsMaternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) Implementation, Maternal Mortality, Neonatal Mortality, Perinatal MortalityArmsAudit and Feedback, Enhanced Mentorship
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Tools or culture? Human factors, not technology, drive cesarean section rates for suspected fetal distress.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Effectiveness of dissemination strategies of maternal clinical guidelines: A narrative review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Review
  17. Observational
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Merlin L WillcoxUniversity of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, Hampshire, UK, SO16 5ST.
Jessica PriceUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Sophie ScottUniversity of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, Hampshire, UK, SO16 5ST.
Brian D NicholsonUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Beth StuartUniversity of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Southampton, UK, SO16 5ST.
Nia W RobertsUniversity of Oxford, Bodleian Health Care Libraries, Knowledge Centre, ORC Research Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7DQ.
Helen AllottLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Centre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Pembroke Pl, Liverpool, UK, L3 5QA.
Vincent MubangiziMbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST), Family medicine and community practice, MUST, PLOT 10-18, KABALE ROAD, Mbarara, Uganda, 1410, Mbarara.
Alexandre DumontInstitut de recherche pour le développement, Paris Descartes University, UMR 196 CEPED, Faculté de Pharmacie, 4 avenue de l?Observatoire, Paris, France, 75006.
Anthony HarndenUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBCentre Population et Développement · FRLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBMbarara University of Science and Technology · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include reducing the global maternal mortality rate to less than 70 per 100,000 live births and ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years of age, in every country, by 2030. Maternal and perinatal death audit and review is widely recommended as an intervention to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality, and to improve quality of care, and could be key to attaining the SDGs. However, there is uncertainty over the most cost-effective way of auditing and reviewing deaths: community-based audit (verbal and social autopsy), facility-based audits (significant event analysis (SEA)) or a combination of both (confidential enquiry).

objectivesTo assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of different types of death audits and reviews in reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following from inception to 16 January 2019: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OvidSP, and five other databases. We identified ongoing studies using ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and searched reference lists of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised trials, cluster non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies of any form of death audit or review that involved reviewing individual cases of maternal, perinatal or child deaths, identifying avoidable factors, and making recommendations. To be included in the review, a study needed to report at least one of the following outcomes: perinatal mortality rate; stillbirth rate; neonatal mortality rate; mortality rate in children under five years of age or maternal mortality rate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We planned to perform a meta-analysis using a random-effects model but included studies were not homogeneous enough to make pooling their results meaningful. MAIN

resultsWe included two cluster-randomised trials. Both introduced death review and audit as part of a multicomponent intervention, and compared this to current care. The QUARITE study (QUAlity of care, RIsk management, and TEchnology) concerned maternal death reviews in hospitals in West Africa, which had very high maternal and perinatal mortality rates. In contrast, the OPERA trial studied perinatal morbidity/mortality conferences (MMCs) in maternity units in France, which already had very low perinatal mortality rates at baseline. The OPERA intervention in France started with an outreach visit to brief obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists on the national guidelines on morbidity/mortality case management, and was followed by a series of perinatal MMCs. Half of the intervention units were randomised to receive additional support from a clinical psychologist during these meetings. The OPERA intervention may make little or no difference to overall perinatal mortality (low certainty evidence), however we are uncertain about the effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality related to suboptimal care (very low certainty evidence).The intervention probably reduces perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.95; 165,353 births; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on stillbirth rate, neonatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, maternal mortality or adverse effects was not reported. The QUARITE intervention in West Africa focused on training leaders of hospital obstetric teams using the ALARM (Advances in Labour And Risk Management) course, which included one day of training about conducting maternal death reviews. The leaders returned to their hospitals, established a multidisciplinary committee and started auditing maternal deaths, with the support of external facilitators. The intervention probably reduces inpatient maternal deaths (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 191,167 deliveries; moderate certainty evidence) and probably also reduces inpatient neonatal mortality within 24 hours following birth (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90; moderate certainty evidence). However, QUARITE probably makes little or no difference to the inpatient stillbirth rate (moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the inpatient neonatal mortality rate after 24 hours, although the 95% confidence interval includes both benefit and harm (low certainty evidence). The QUARITE intervention probably increases the percent of women receiving high quality of care (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35 - 2.57, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, or adverse effects was not reported. We did not find any studies that evaluated child death audit and review or community-based death reviews or costs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsA complex intervention including maternal death audit and review, as well as development of local leadership and training, probably reduces inpatient maternal mortality in low-income country district hospitals, and probably slightly improves quality of care. Perinatal death audit and review, as part of a complex intervention with training, probably improves quality of care, as measured by perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care, in a high-income setting where mortality was already very low. The WHO recommends that maternal and perinatal death reviews should be conducted in all hospitals globally. However, conducting death reviews in isolation may not be sufficient to achieve the reductions in mortality observed in the QUARITE trial. This review suggests that maternal death audit and review may need to be implemented as part of an intervention package which also includes elements such as training of a leading doctor and midwife in each hospital, annual recertification, and quarterly outreach visits by external facilitators to provide supervision and mentorship. The same may also apply to perinatal and child death reviews. More operational research is needed on the most cost-effective ways of implementing maternal, perinatal and paediatric death reviews in low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Child MortalityClinical AuditInfant MortalityPerinatal MortalityChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID32212268
PMCPMC7093891
OpenAlexW2790202348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.