Abstract
BackgroundOver 5 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. Limited and imprecise information on the cause of these deaths hampers progress in achieving global health targets. Complete diagnostic autopsies (CDAs)—the gold standard for cause of death determination—are difficult to perform in most high-burden settings. Therefore, validation of simpler and more feasible methods is needed.Methods and findingsIn this observational study, the validity of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) method in determining the cause of death was assessed in 18 stillbirths and 41 neonatal deaths by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the CDA. Concordance between the categories of diseases obtained by the 2 methods was assessed by the Kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the MIA diagnoses were calculated. A cause of death was identified in 16/18 (89%) and 15/18 (83%) stillborn babies in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. Fetal growth restriction accounted for 39%, infectious diseases for 22%, intrapartum hypoxia for 17%, and intrauterine hypoxia for 11% of stillborn babies. Overall, the MIA showed in this group a substantial concordance with the CDA (Kappa = 0.78, 95% CI [0.56–0.99]). A cause of death was identified in all (100%) and 35/41 (85%) neonatal deaths in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. In this group, the majority of deaths were due to infectious diseases (66%). The overall concordance of the MIA with the CDA in neonates was moderate (Kappa = 0.40, 95% CI [0.18–0.63]). A high percentage of accuracy was observed for the MIA in all the diagnostic categories in both stillbirths and neonates (>75%). The main limitation of this study is that some degree of subjective interpretation is inherent to cause-of-death attribution in both the MIA and the CDA; this is especially so in stillbirths and in relation to fetal growth restriction.ConclusionsThe MIA could be a useful tool for cause-of-death determination in stillbirths and neonatal deaths. These findings may help to accelerate progress towards meeting global health targets by obtaining more accurate information on the causes of death in these age groups, which is essential in guiding the design of new interventions and increasing the effectiveness of those already implemented.
Highlights
Progress in reducing child mortality has been significantly slower than the target annual rate of decline of 4.4% for children under 5 years established by the previous Millennium Development Goals [1,2,3]
The minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) could be a useful tool for cause-of-death determination in stillbirths and neonatal deaths
We developed a simplified minimally invasive autopsy method, which would be feasible in middle- and low-income countries, and validated it against the complete autopsy, the gold standard, in a series of stillborn babies and neonates who died in Mozambique
Summary
Progress in reducing child mortality has been significantly slower than the target annual rate of decline of 4.4% for children under 5 years established by the previous Millennium Development Goals [1,2,3]. The vast majority of these deaths (99%) take place in low- and middle-income countries, where vital registration systems are inadequate or nonexistent and rarely medically certified [1,2,3,4,5] This imposes the need to make sophisticated assumptions to establish the etiology in the majority of these deaths [6]. Efforts to reduce the burden of peri-neonatal mortality are not always evidence driven, and it is extremely challenging to assess the extent of the progress towards the new Sustainable Development Goals and, to adequately guide policy targeting this age group [7]. Validation of simpler and more feasible methods is needed
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.