| Literature DB >> 29117196 |
Paola Castillo1,2, Juan Carlos Hurtado1,3, Miguel J Martínez1,3, Dercio Jordao4, Lucilia Lovane4, Mamudo R Ismail4,5, Carla Carrilho4,5, Cesaltina Lorenzoni4,5, Fabiola Fernandes4, Sibone Mocumbi6, Zara Onila Jaze6, Flora Mabota6, Anelsio Cossa7, Inacio Mandomando7, Pau Cisteró1, Alfredo Mayor1,7, Mireia Navarro1,3, Isaac Casas1,3, Jordi Vila1,3, Maria Maixenchs1,7, Khátia Munguambe5,7, Ariadna Sanz1, Llorenç Quintó1, Eusebio Macete7, Pedro Alonso1,7, Quique Bassat1,7,8, Jaume Ordi1,2, Clara Menéndez1,7,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite global health efforts to reduce maternal mortality, rates continue to be unacceptably high in large parts of the world. Feasible, acceptable, and accurate postmortem sampling methods could provide the necessary evidence to improve the understanding of the real causes of maternal mortality, guiding the design of interventions to reduce this burden. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29117196 PMCID: PMC5695595 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Concordance of the cause of death categorization between the MIA and the CDA (gold standard).
| MIA diagnosis | CDA diagnosis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancies with abortive outcome | Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy | Obstetric hemorrhage | Pregnancy-related infections | Nonobstetric complications | Non- conclusive | Total | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | |||
Kappa statistic: 0.48 (moderate agreement); 95% CI: 0.31–0.66.
Abbreviations: CDA, complete diagnostic autopsy; MIA, minimally invasive autopsy.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy of the MIA for the different diagnostic categories in maternal deaths.
Figures are percentages and 95% CI. S1 Table summarizes the cause of death for each patient according to each of the 2 methods used.
| Causes of death in the CDA (gold standard) | Cases | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | Positive predictive value (95%CI) | Negative predictive value (95% CI) | Correctly classified (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 83 (36–100) | 98 (90–100) | 83 (36–100) | 98 (90–100) | 96 (88–100) | |
| 1 | 100 (2–100) | 100 (94–100) | 100 (2–100) | 96 (94–100) | 100 (94–100) | |
| 13 | 8 (0–36) | 100 (92–100) | 100 (2–100) | 79 (66–88) | 79 (66–88) | |
| 4 | 50 (7–93) | 98 (90–100) | 67 (9–99) | 96 (87–100) | 95 (85–99) | |
| 32 | 91 (75–98) | 68 (46–85) | 78 (62–90) | 85 (62–97) | 81 (68–90) | |
| 1 | 100 (2–100) | 86 (74–94) | 11 (0–48) | 100 (93–100) | 86 (74–94) |
Abbreviations: CDA, complete diagnostic autopsy; MIA, minimally invasive autopsy.
Etiological microorganisms identified in the CDA (gold standard) and in the MIA, and the number identified in both methods.
| Etiological microorganisms | Microorganisms identified in the CDA (gold standard) | Microorganisms identified in the MIA and in the CDA | Microorganisms identified in the MIA but not in the CDA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobacteriaceae | 2 | 2 | - |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
| 1 | 0 | - | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 4 | 4 | - | |
| 3 | 3 | - | |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
| 1 | 0 | - | |
| 4 | 4 | - | |
| 1 | 1 | - | |
* Mixed infection of at least 2 of these enterobacteria: Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, or K. pneumoniae
† All the microorganisms identified in the MIA were also identified in the CDA but by definition were not considered as the cause of death.
†† One of the enterobacteria identified in the MIA was also identified in the CDA but was not considered the cause of death.
Abbreviations: CDA, complete diagnostic autopsy; MIA, minimally invasive autopsy.