↓ Skip to main content

Stillbirth rates in low-middle income countries 2010 - 2013: a population-based, multi-country study from the Global Network

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stillbirth rates in low-middle income countries 2010 - 2013: a population-based, multi-country study from the Global Network
Published in
Reproductive Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/1742-4755-12-s2-s7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth M McClure, Sarah Saleem, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Janet L Moore, Ana Garces, Fabian Esamai, Archana Patel, Elwyn Chomba, Fernando Althabe, Omrana Pasha, Bhalachandra S Kodkany, Carl L Bose, Mabel Berreuta, Edward A Liechty, K Michael Hambidge, Nancy F Krebs, Richard J Derman, Patricia L Hibberd, Pierre Buekens, Albert Manasyan, Waldemar A Carlo, Dennis D Wallace, Marion Koso-Thomas, Robert L Goldenberg

Abstract

Stillbirth rates remain nearly ten times higher in low-middle income countries (LMIC) than high income countries. In LMIC, where nearly 98% of stillbirths worldwide occur, few population-based studies have documented characteristics or care for mothers with stillbirths. Non-macerated stillbirths, those occurring around delivery, are generally considered preventable with appropriate obstetric care. We undertook a prospective, population-based observational study of all pregnant women in defined geographic areas across 7 sites in low-resource settings (Kenya, Zambia, India, Pakistan, Guatemala and Argentina). Staff collected demographic and health care characteristics with outcomes obtained at delivery. From 2010 through 2013, 269,614 enrolled women had 272,089 births, including 7,865 stillbirths. The overall stillbirth rate was 28.9/1000 births, ranging from 13.6/1000 births in Argentina to 56.5/1000 births in Pakistan. Stillbirth rates were stable or declined in 6 of the 7 sites from 2010-2013, only increasing in Pakistan. Less educated, older and women with less access to antenatal care were at increased risk of stillbirth. Furthermore, women not delivered by a skilled attendant were more likely to have a stillbirth (RR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2, 3.5). Compared to live births, stillbirths were more likely to be preterm (RR 12.4, 95% CI 11.2, 13.6). Infants with major congenital anomalies were at increased risk of stillbirth (RR 9.1, 95% CI 7.3, 11.4), as were multiple gestations (RR 2.8, 95% CI 2.4, 3.2) and breech (RR 3.0, 95% CI 2.6, 3.5). Altogether, 67.4% of the stillbirths were non-macerated. 7.6% of women with stillbirths had cesarean sections, with obstructed labor the primary indication (36.9%). Stillbirth rates were high, but with reductions in most sites during the study period. Disadvantaged women, those with less antenatal care and those delivered without a skilled birth attendant were at increased risk of delivering a stillbirth. More than two-thirds of all stillbirths were non-macerated, suggesting potentially preventable stillbirth. Additionally, 8% of women with stillbirths were delivered by cesarean section. The relatively high rate of cesarean section among those with stillbirths suggested that this care was too late or not of quality to prevent the stillbirth; however, further research is needed to evaluate the quality of obstetric care, including cesarean section, on stillbirth in these low resource settings. Clinicaltrials.gov (ID# NCT01073475).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 259 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 19%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 7%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 75 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 13%
Social Sciences 20 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 89 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,195,544
of 25,037,495 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#217
of 1,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,329
of 271,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,037,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.