ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Understanding the clinical utility of stillbirth investigations: a scoping review.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvestigating the causes of stillbirth is crucial for both parents and healthcare providers as it helps explain why the baby died, guides clinical care in future pregnancies, and aids in developing strategies to prevent stillbirth. The usefulness or utility of investigations for stillbirth is poorly defined and unclear. As a result, protocols for investigating the causes of stillbirth are currently based on clinical consensus and fail to prioritise investigative approaches that are most effective at determining a cause of death.
objectivesThe objectives of this scoping review were to identify the available evidence, key characteristics, and knowledge gaps regarding the utility of stillbirth investigations. SEARCH STRATEGY: An a priori protocol was implemented and included a systematic search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane from inception until 28 May 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies examining stillbirth investigations, yield, and value were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected using a purpose-built data extraction tool and an analysis was undertaken.
results57 potentially eligible studies were identified, and 34 studies (with 11,410 stillbirths) were included. Three studies examined clinical utility using a comprehensive testing protocol. Definition of utility or value of investigations varied across the studies, classification system for cause of death and investigation protocols varied. Placental pathology was reported as the most useful investigation in 65%-96% of cases, identified a cause of death in 61-71% of cases and impacting the medical management in 36% of cases (13 studies, 5,169 stillbirths). Autopsy can identify the cause of death in 36-77% of cases and provided new information in 17-26% of cases (17 studies, 4,336 stillbirths). Genetic analysis was useful in 29% of cases (seven studies, 1,886 stillbirths). One study (512 stillbirths) examined the value of investigation by presenting clinical scenario.
conclusionsThis review indicates that Investigation protocols for stillbirth should include placental pathology, autopsy, and genetic testing. Future studies should address the value of tests by presenting clinical scenarios, use of a consistent definition of stillbirth, classification system and measurement of investigation value.
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.