Arun K Aggarwal1, Vanita Jain, Rajesh Kumar. 1. School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. aggak63@gmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the verbal autopsy tool for stillbirths of the World Health Organization (WHO) by using hospital diagnosis of the underlying cause of stillbirth (the gold standard) and to compare the fraction of stillbirths attributed to various specific causes through hospital assessment versus verbal autopsy. METHODS: In a hospital in Chandigarh, we prospectively studied all stillbirths occurring from 15 April 2006 to 31 March 2008 whose cause was diagnosed within 2 days. All mothers had to be at least 24 weeks pregnant and live within 100 km of the hospital. For verbal autopsy, field workers visited mothers 4 to 6 weeks after the stillbirth. Autopsy results were reviewed by two independent obstetricians and disagreements were resolved by engaging a third expert. Causes of stillbirths as determined by hospital assessment and verbal autopsy were compared in frequency. FINDINGS: Hospital assessment and verbal autopsy yielded the same top five underlying causes of stillbirth: pregnancy-induced hypertension (30%), antepartum haemorrhage (16%), underlying maternal illness (12%), congenital malformations (12%) and obstetric complications (10%). Overall diagnostic accuracy of verbal autopsy diagnosis versus hospital-based diagnosis for all five top causes of stillbirth was 64%. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) were, for congenital malformations, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.83-0.97); pre-gestational maternal illness, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84); pregnancy-induced hypertension, 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81); antepartum haemorrhage, 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.84) and obstetric complication, 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.93). CONCLUSION: The WHO verbal autopsy tool for stillbirth can provide reasonably good estimates of common underlying causes of stillbirth in resource-limited settings where a medically certified cause of stillbirth may not be available.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the verbal autopsy tool for stillbirths of the World Health Organization (WHO) by using hospital diagnosis of the underlying cause of stillbirth (the gold standard) and to compare the fraction of stillbirths attributed to various specific causes through hospital assessment versus verbal autopsy. METHODS: In a hospital in Chandigarh, we prospectively studied all stillbirths occurring from 15 April 2006 to 31 March 2008 whose cause was diagnosed within 2 days. All mothers had to be at least 24 weeks pregnant and live within 100 km of the hospital. For verbal autopsy, field workers visited mothers 4 to 6 weeks after the stillbirth. Autopsy results were reviewed by two independent obstetricians and disagreements were resolved by engaging a third expert. Causes of stillbirths as determined by hospital assessment and verbal autopsy were compared in frequency. FINDINGS: Hospital assessment and verbal autopsy yielded the same top five underlying causes of stillbirth: pregnancy-induced hypertension (30%), antepartum haemorrhage (16%), underlying maternal illness (12%), congenital malformations (12%) and obstetric complications (10%). Overall diagnostic accuracy of verbal autopsy diagnosis versus hospital-based diagnosis for all five top causes of stillbirth was 64%. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) were, for congenital malformations, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.83-0.97); pre-gestational maternal illness, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84); pregnancy-induced hypertension, 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81); antepartum haemorrhage, 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.84) and obstetric complication, 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.93). CONCLUSION: The WHO verbal autopsy tool for stillbirth can provide reasonably good estimates of common underlying causes of stillbirth in resource-limited settings where a medically certified cause of stillbirth may not be available.
Authors: R W Snow; J R Armstrong; D Forster; M T Winstanley; V M Marsh; C R Newton; C Waruiru; I Mwangi; P A Winstanley; K Marsh Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-08-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joy E Lawn; Simon Cousens; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Gary L Darmstadt; Jose Martines; Vinod Paul; Rudolf Knippenberg; Helga Fogstadt; Priya Shetty; Richard Horton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Jul 31-Aug 6 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Katherine J Gold; Abdul-Razak S Abdul-Mumin; Martha E Boggs; Henry S Opare-Addo; Richard W Lieberman Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Rafael Lozano; Alan D Lopez; Charles Atkinson; Mohsen Naghavi; Abraham D Flaxman; Christopher Jl Murray Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2011-08-04
Authors: Jacquelyn K Patterson; Aleha Aziz; Melissa S Bauserman; Elizabeth M McClure; Robert L Goldenberg; Carl L Bose Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: Susannah Hopkins Leisher; Zheyi Teoh; Hanna Reinebrant; Emma Allanson; Hannah Blencowe; Jan Jaap Erwich; J Frederik Frøen; Jason Gardosi; Sanne Gordijn; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Alexander E P Heazell; Fleurisca Korteweg; Joy Lawn; Elizabeth M McClure; Robert Pattinson; Gordon C S Smith; Ӧzge Tunçalp; Aleena M Wojcieszek; Vicki Flenady Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Li Liu; Henry D Kalter; Yue Chu; Narjis Kazmi; Alain K Koffi; Agbessi Amouzou; Olga Joos; Melinda Munos; Robert E Black Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jordana Leitao; Daniel Chandramohan; Peter Byass; Robert Jakob; Kanitta Bundhamcharoen; Chanpen Choprapawon; Don de Savigny; Edward Fottrell; Elizabeth França; Frederik Frøen; Gihan Gewaifel; Abraham Hodgson; Sennen Hounton; Kathleen Kahn; Anand Krishnan; Vishwajeet Kumar; Honorati Masanja; Erin Nichols; Francis Notzon; Mohammad Hafiz Rasooly; Osman Sankoh; Paul Spiegel; Carla AbouZahr; Marc Amexo; Derege Kebede; William Soumbey Alley; Fatima Marinho; Mohamed Ali; Enrique Loyola; Jyotsna Chikersal; Jun Gao; Giuseppe Annunziata; Rajiv Bahl; Kidist Bartolomeus; Ties Boerma; Bedirhan Ustun; Doris Chou; Lulu Muhe; Matthews Mathai Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 2.640