122
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      3.2 million stillbirths: epidemiology and overview of the evidence review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          More than 3.2 million stillbirths occur globally each year, yet stillbirths are largely invisible in global data tracking, policy dialogue and programme implementation. This mismatch of burden to action is due to a number of factors that keep stillbirths hidden, notably a lack of data and a lack of consensus on priority interventions, but also to social taboos that reduce the visibility of stillbirths and the associated family mourning. Whilst there are estimates of the numbers of stillbirths, to date there has been no systematic global analysis of the causes of stillbirths. The multiple classifications systems in use are often complex and are primarily focused on high-income countries. We review available data and propose a programmatic classification that is feasible and comparable across settings. We undertook a comprehensive global review of available information on stillbirths in order to 1) identify studies that evaluated risk factors and interventions to reduce stillbirths, 2) evaluate the level of evidence for interventions, 3) place the available evidence for interventions in a health systems context to guide programme implementation, and 4) elucidate key implementation, monitoring, and research gaps. This first paper in the series outlines issues in stillbirth data availability and quality, the global epidemiology of stillbirths, and describes the methodology and framework used for the review of interventions and strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

          Background A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Methods Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. Results There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. Conclusions All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Community-based interventions for improving perinatal and neonatal health outcomes in developing countries: a review of the evidence.

            Infant and under-5 childhood mortality rates in developing countries have declined significantly in the past 2 to 3 decades. However, 2 critical indicators, maternal and newborn mortality, have hardly changed. World leaders at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000 agreed on a critical goal to reduce deaths of children <5 years by two thirds, but this may be unattainable without halving newborn deaths, which now comprise 40% of all under-5 deaths. Greater emphasis on wide-scale implementation of proven, cost-effective measures is required to save women's and newborns' lives. Approximately 99% of neonatal deaths take place in developing countries, mostly in homes and communities. A comprehensive review of the evidence base for impact of interventions on neonatal health and survival in developing-country communities has not been reported. This review of community-based antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal intervention trials in developing countries aimed to identify (1) key behaviors and interventions for which the weight of evidence is sufficient to recommend their inclusion in community-based neonatal care programs and (2) key gaps in knowledge and priority areas for future research and program learning. Available published and unpublished data on the impact of community-based strategies and interventions on perinatal and neonatal health status outcomes were reviewed. Evidence was summarized systematically and categorized into 4 levels of evidence based on study size, location, design, and reported impact, particularly on perinatal or neonatal mortality. The evidence was placed in the context of biological plausibility of the intervention; evidence from relevant developed-country studies; health care program experience in implementation; and recommendations from the World Health Organization and other leading agencies. A paucity of community-based data was found from developing-country studies on health status impact for many interventions currently being considered for inclusion in neonatal health programs. However, review of the evidence and consideration of the broader context of knowledge, experience, and recommendations regarding these interventions enabled us to categorize them according to the strength of the evidence base and confidence regarding their inclusion now in programs. This article identifies a package of priority interventions to include in programs and formulates research priorities for advancing the state of the art in neonatal health care. This review emphasizes some new findings while recommending an integrated approach to safe motherhood and newborn health. The results of this study provide a foundation for policies and programs related to maternal and newborn health and emphasizes the importance of health systems research and evaluation of interventions. The review offers compelling support for using research to identify the most effective measures to save newborn lives. It also may facilitate dialogue with policy makers about the importance of investing in neonatal health.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              No cry at birth: global estimates of intrapartum stillbirths and intrapartum-related neonatal deaths.

              Fewer than 3% of 4 million annual neonatal deaths occur in countries with reliable vital registration (VR) data. Global estimates for asphyxia-related neonatal deaths vary from 0.7 to 1.2 million. Estimates for intrapartum stillbirths are not available. We aimed to estimate the numbers of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths and intrapartum stillbirths in the year 2000. Sources of data on neonatal death included: vital registration (VR) data on neonatal death from countries with full (> 90%) VR coverage (48 countries, n = 97,297); studies identified through literature searches (> 4000 abstracts) and meeting inclusion criteria (46 populations, 30 countries, n = 12,355). A regression model was fitted to cause-specific proportionate mortality data from VR and the literature. Predicted cause-specific proportions were applied to the number of neonatal deaths by country, and summed to a global total. Intrapartum stillbirths were estimated using median cause-specific mortality rate by country (73 populations, 52 countries, n = 46,779) or the subregional median in the absence of country data. Intrapartum-related neonatal deaths were estimated at 0.904 million (uncertainty 0.65-1.17), equivalent to 23% of the global total of 4 million neonatal deaths. Country-level model predictions compared well with population-based data sets not included in the input data. An estimated 1.02 million intrapartum stillbirths (0.66-1.48 million) occur annually, comprising 26% of global stillbirths. Intrapartum-related neonatal deaths account for almost 10% of deaths in children aged under 5 years. Intrapartum stillbirths are a huge and invisible problem, but are potentially preventable. Programmatic attention and improved information are required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
                BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
                BioMed Central
                1471-2393
                2009
                7 May 2009
                : 9
                : Suppl 1
                : S2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Saving Newborn Lives/Save the Children-US, Cape Town, South Africa
                [2 ]Center for Health and Development, Institute of Child Health, London, UK
                [3 ]Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa
                [4 ]Division of Maternal and Child Health, The Aga Khan University, Karachi – 74800, Pakistan
                [5 ]Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                Article
                1471-2393-9-S1-S2
                10.1186/1471-2393-9-S1-S2
                2679408
                19426465
                590507bf-6c36-4cef-972e-cbc279a5ac5e
                Copyright © 2009 Lawn et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Review and Methods Overview

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                Obstetrics & Gynecology

                Comments

                Comment on this article