ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2023
Worth the paper it's written on? A cross-sectional study of Medical Certificate of Stillbirth accuracy in the UK.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glycaemic control in labour with diabetes: GILD, a scoping study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and management of endometrial hyperplasia: A UK national audit of adherence to national guidance 2012-2020.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Medical Certificate of Stillbirth (MCS) records data about a baby's death after 24 weeks of gestation but before birth. Major errors that could alter interpretation of the MCS were widespread in two UK-based regional studies.
methodsA multicentre evaluation was conducted, examining MCS issued 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 in 76 UK obstetric units. A systematic case-note review of stillbirths was conducted by Obstetric and Gynaecology trainees, generating individual 'ideal MCSs' and comparing these to the actual MCS issued. Anonymized central data analysis described rates and types of error, agreement and factors associated with major errors.
resultsThere were 1120 MCSs suitable for assessment, with 126 additional submitted data sets unsuitable for accuracy analysis (total 1246 cases). Gestational age demonstrated 'substantial' agreement [K = 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76)]. Primary cause of death (COD) showed 'fair' agreement [K = 0.26 (95% CI 0.24-0.29)]. Major errors [696/1120; 62.1% (95% CI 59.3-64.9%)] included certificates issued for fetal demise at <24 weeks' gestation [23/696; 3.3% (95% CI 2.2-4.9%)] or neonatal death [2/696; 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-1.1%)] or incorrect primary COD [667/696; 95.8% (95% CI 94.1-97.1%)]. Of 540/1246 [43.3% (95% CI 40.6-46.1%)] 'unexplained' stillbirths, only 119/540 [22.0% (95% CI 18.8-25.7%)] remained unexplained; the majority were redesignated as either fetal growth restriction [FGR: 195/540; 36.1% (95% CI 32.2-40.3%)] or placental insufficiency [184/540; 34.1% (95% CI 30.2-38.2)]. Overall, FGR [306/1246; 24.6% (95% CI 22.3-27.0%)] was the leading primary COD after review, yet only 53/306 [17.3% (95% CI 13.5-22.1%)] FGR cases were originally attributed correctly.
conclusionThis study demonstrates widespread major errors in MCS completion across the UK. MCS should only be completed following structured case-note review, with particular attention on the fetal growth trajectory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.