Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32773900›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2020

Maternal near-miss surveillance, Namibia.

Steffie Heemelaar, Mirjam Josef, Zoe Diener, Melody Chipeio, Jelle Stekelenburg, Thomas van den Akker, Shonag Mackenzie

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Incidence and causes of severe maternal outcomes in Somaliland using the sub-Saharan Africa maternal near-miss criteria: A prospective cross-sectional study in a national referral hospital.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Great saves or near misses? Severe maternal outcome in Metro East, South Africa: A region-wide population-based case-control study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  17. Maternal and fetal outcomes of pregnancies complicated by acute hepatitis E and the impact of HIV status: A cross-sectional study in Namibia.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steffie HeemelaarDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Katutura State Hospital, PO Box 86237, Eros, Windhoek, Namibia.
Mirjam JosefDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Katutura State Hospital, PO Box 86237, Eros, Windhoek, Namibia.
Zoe DienerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of North Carolina, North Carolina, United States of America.
Melody ChipeioDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Katutura State Hospital, PO Box 86237, Eros, Windhoek, Namibia.
Jelle StekelenburgDepartment of Health Science, Global Health, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Thomas van den AkkerDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Shonag MackenzieDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyse and improve the Namibian maternity care system by implementing maternal near-miss surveillance during 1 October 2018 and 31 March 2019, and identifying the challenges and benefits of such data collection.

methodsFrom the results of an initial feasibility study, we adapted the World Health Organization's criteria defining a maternal near miss to the Namibian health-care system. We visited most (27 out of 35) participating facilities before implementation and provided training on maternal near-miss identification and data collection. We visited all facilities at the end of the surveillance period to verify recorded data and to give staff the opportunity to provide feedback.

findingsDuring the 6-month period, we recorded 37 106 live births, 298 maternal near misses (8.0 per 1000 live births) and 23 maternal deaths (62.0 per 100 000 live births). We observed that obstetric haemorrhage and hypertensive disorders were the most common causes of maternal near misses (each 92/298; 30.9%). Of the 49 maternal near misses due to pregnancies with abortive outcomes, ectopic pregnancy was the most common cause (36/298; 12.1%). Fetal or neonatal outcomes were poor; only 50.3% (157/312) of the infants born to maternal near-miss mothers went home with their mother.

conclusionMaternal near-miss surveillance is a useful intervention to identify within-country challenges, such as lack of access to caesarean section or hysterectomy. Knowledge of these challenges can be used by policy-makers and programme managers in the development of locally tailored targeted interventions to improve maternal outcome in their setting.

Indexed as

Maternal MortalityAdultFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal Health ServicesNamibiaNear Miss, HealthcarePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePublic Health SurveillanceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32773900
PMCPMC7411319
OpenAlexW3046488300

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.