IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19877791202-1206_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of fetal death reports: Comparison with data from an independent stillbirth assessment program

Author

Listed:
  • Greb, A.E.
  • Pauli, R.M.
  • Kirby, R.S.

Abstract

We evaluated the completeness and accuracy of reporting on Wisconsin fetal death report forms (FDF) through case by case comparison with data from the Wisconsin Stillbirth Service Project (WiSSP), which uses extensive protocols for etiologic investigation of stillborns. Fetal deaths are underreported: no FDF was submitted for 17.8 per cent of fetal deaths evaluated through the WiSSP. For those for whom FDF were submitted, fetal anomalies were often unrecognized or unreported: only 60 per cent of stillborns identified by the WiSSP as having fetal anomalies had any indication of the presence of such anomalies on FDF. When causes of death were classified into fetal, placental/cord, maternal/environmental, and unknown, comparison of reported underlying cause of death revealed marked inaccuracies on FDF. Placental/cord causes reported on FDF often could not be documented subsequently while, in contrast, fetal causes of death were underreported. Few accurate fetal diagnoses were present on FDF. Even among common lethal malformations misdiagnosis occurred frequently.

Suggested Citation

  • Greb, A.E. & Pauli, R.M. & Kirby, R.S., 1987. "Accuracy of fetal death reports: Comparison with data from an independent stillbirth assessment program," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 77(9), pages 1202-1206.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1987:77:9:1202-1206_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1987:77:9:1202-1206_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.