↓ Skip to main content

WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality: the prevalence of severe acute maternal morbidity (near miss)

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, August 2004
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
320 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
476 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
WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality: the prevalence of severe acute maternal morbidity (near miss)
Published in
Reproductive Health, August 2004
DOI 10.1186/1742-4755-1-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lale Say, Robert C Pattinson, A Metin Gülmezoglu

Abstract

AIM: To determine the prevalence of severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM) worldwide (near miss). METHOD: Systematic review of all available data. The methodology followed a pre-defined protocol, an extensive search strategy of 10 electronic databases as well as other sources. Articles were evaluated according to specified inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using data extraction instrument which collects additional information on the quality of reporting including definitions and identification of cases. Data were entered into a specially constructed database and tabulated using SAS statistical management and analysis software. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies are included in the systematic review. Designs are mainly cross-sectional and 24 were conducted in hospital settings, mostly teaching hospitals. Fourteen studies report on a defined SAMM condition while the remainder use a response to an event such as admission to intensive care unit as a proxy for SAMM. Criteria for identification of cases vary widely across studies. Prevalences vary between 0.80% - 8.23% in studies that use disease-specific criteria while the range is 0.38% - 1.09% in the group that use organ-system based criteria and included unselected group of women. Rates are within the range of 0.01% and 2.99% in studies using management-based criteria. It is not possible to pool data together to provide summary estimates or comparisons between different settings due to variations in case-identification criteria. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inverse trend in prevalence with development status of a country. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need to set uniform criteria to classify patients as SAMM. This standardisation could be made for similar settings separately. An organ-system dysfunction/failure approach is the most epidemiologically sound as it is least open to bias, and thus could permit developing summary estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 476 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Nigeria 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 448 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 21%
Researcher 64 13%
Student > Postgraduate 52 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 110 23%
Unknown 95 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 241 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 9%
Social Sciences 34 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 1%
Other 32 7%
Unknown 108 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,381,560
of 23,680,154 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#517
of 1,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,838
of 59,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,680,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 59,131 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them