You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Prognosis
Systematic review and meta analysis
Prior stillbirth is a risk factor for stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy
  1. Alexander E P Heazell1,2,
  2. Suzanne L Thomas1,2
  1. 1Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK;
  2. 2St Mary's Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Alexander E P Heazell, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, 5th floor (Research), St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; alexander.heazell{at}manchester.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2015-110268

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Lamont K, Scott NW, Jones GT, et al. Risk of recurrent stillbirth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350:h3080OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text.

    Context

    Stillbirth, the death of a baby before birth, is a major global health problem with 2.6 million babies stillborn each year.1 For bereaved mothers and families, stillbirth is associated with adverse economic, psychosocial and social consequences.2 Reductions in stillbirth rates are lagging behind improvements in the rates of infant and neonatal mortality. One approach to reduce stillbirths is to identify pregnancies at increased risk of stillbirth; this can help to prevent stillbirths by directing additional antenatal care and intervention to those most likely to benefit.

    Methods

    Lamont and colleagues systematically reviewed published literature to identify observational studies restricted to high-income countries that investigated the risk of stillbirth in pregnancies after …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Alexander Heazell at @MCR_SB_Research

    • Contributors AEPH and SLT have contributed to writing the commentary.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.