Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36777154›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2022

Evolving stillbirth rates among Black and White women in the United States, 1980-2020: A population-based study.

Cande V Ananth, Jessica C Fields, Justin S Brandt, Hillary L Graham, Katherine M Keyes, Jennifer Zeitlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 'I Was Shattered and Broken': Unmasking the Experiences and Responses of Black Canadian to Pregnancy Loss.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Short-Term Increases in NOEnvironmental science & technology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Cande V AnanthDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Jessica C FieldsDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Justin S BrandtDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Hillary L GrahamDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Katherine M KeyesDepartment of Epidemiology, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer ZeitlinObstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, UMR 1153, Inserm (French National Institute for Health and Medical Research), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Given slowing secular declines and persistent racial disparities, stillbirth remains a major health burden in the US. We investigate changes in stillbirth rates overall and for Black and White women, and determine how maternal age, delivery year (period), and birth year (cohort) have shaped trends. Methods: We designed a sequential time-series analysis utilising the 1980 to 2020 US vital records data of live births and stillbirths at ≥24 weeks gestation. Stillbirth rates overall and among Black and White women were examined. We undertook an age-period-cohort analysis to evaluate temporal changes in stillbirth trends. Findings: Of 157,192,032 live births and 710,832 stillbirths between 1980 and 2020, stillbirth rates per 1000 births declined from 10.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.5, 10.7) in 1980 to 5.8 (95% CI 5.7, 5.8) in 2020. Stillbirth rates declined from 9.2 to 5.0 per 1000 births among White women (rate ratio [RR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.53, 0.55), and from 17.4 to 10.1 per 1000 births among Black women (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.55, 0.59). Black women experienced persistent two-fold higher rates compared to White women (2.01, 95% CI 1.97, 2.05 in 2020). Stillbirth rates declined until 2005, increased from 2005 to the mid-2010s and plateaued thereafter. Strong cohort effects contributed to declining rates in earlier cohorts (1930-1955) and increasing rates among women born after 1980. Interpretation: Age, period, and birth cohorts greatly influenced US stillbirth rates over the last forty years. The decline in stillbirth rate was evident between 1980 and 2005, however subsequent declines have been minimal, reflecting no further gains for cohorts of women born in 1955-1980 and stagnation of period effects starting in 2005. A significant racial disparity persisted with a two-fold excess in stillbirth rates for Black compared to White women, underscoring the need for targeted health and social policies to address disparities. Funding: None.

Indexed as

APC, age-period-cohortCI, confidence intervalLifecourseMaternal ageMaternal birth cohortRaceRR, rate ratioStillbirthTrends

Identifiers

PMID36777154
PMCPMC9903913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.