Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33557841›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2021

Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

Hannah Blencowe, Matteo Bottecchia, Doris Kwesiga, Joseph Akuze, M Moinuddin Haider, Edward Galiwango, Francis Dzabeng, Ane B Fisker, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi Enuameh, Bisrat Misganaw Geremew and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Definitions, terminology and standards for reporting of births and deaths in the perinatal period: International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. 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

18 authors.

Hannah BlencoweMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. hannah.blencowe@lshtm.ac.uk.
Matteo BottecchiaMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Doris KwesigaDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Joseph AkuzeMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
M Moinuddin HaiderHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Edward GaliwangoIgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Makerere, Uganda.
Francis DzabengKintampo Health Research Centre, Kintampo, Ghana.
Ane B FiskerBandim Health Project, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau.
Yeetey Akpe Kwesi EnuamehKintampo Health Research Centre, Kintampo, Ghana.
Bisrat Misganaw GeremewDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tryphena NareebaIgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Makerere, Uganda.
Susannah WooddMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Alexandra BeedleMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kimberly PevenMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Simon CousensMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Peter Waiswa *Department of Health Policy, Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Joy E Lawn *Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Every Newborn-INDEPTH Study Collaborative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHousehold surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categorisation, e.g. by sex, or timing (intrapartum/antepartum) improves data to understand and prevent stillbirth.

methodsWe undertook a cross-sectional population-based survey of women of reproductive age in five health and demographic surveillance system sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). All women answered a full birth history with pregnancy loss questions (FBH+) or a full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample across both groups were asked additional stillbirth questions. Questions were evaluated using descriptive measures. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, focus group discussions with women exploring barriers to reporting birthweight for stillbirths were conducted. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook.

resultsOverall 69,176 women reported 98,483 livebirths (FBH+) and 102,873 pregnancies (FPH). Additional questions were asked for 1453 stillbirths, 1528 neonatal deaths and 12,620 surviving children born in the 5 years prior to the survey. Completeness was high (> 99%) for existing FBH+/FPH questions on signs of life at birth and gestational age (months). Discordant responses in signs of life at birth between different questions were common; nearly one-quarter classified as stillbirths on FBH+/FPH were reported born alive on additional questions. Availability of information on gestational age (weeks) (58.1%) and birthweight (13.2%) was low amongst stillbirths, and heaping was common. Most women (93.9%) were able to report the sex of their stillborn baby. Response completeness for stillbirth timing (18.3-95.1%) and estimated proportion intrapartum (15.6-90.0%) varied by question and site. Congenital malformations were reported in 3.1% stillbirths. Perceived value in weighing a stillborn baby varied and barriers to weighing at birth a nd knowing birthweight were common.

conclusionsImproving stillbirth data in surveys will require investment in improving the measurement of vital status, gestational age and birthweight by healthcare providers, communication of these with women, and overcoming reporting barriers. Given the large burden and effect on families, improved data must be made available to end preventable stillbirths.

Indexed as

Perinatal DeathStillbirthBirth WeightChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyClassificationMeasurementStillbirthSurvey

Identifiers

PMID33557841
PMCPMC7869203

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.