1887
Volume 2025, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • EISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Stillbirths (SBs) remain the largest contributor to perinatal mortality, with nearly two-thirds of SBs consistently reported as unexplained. Studies have consistently shown fetal growth restriction (FGR) as a major contributor to SB. Early detection and appropriate management are vital to reducing SB, and the Relevant Condition at Death (ReCoDe) classification utilizes customized birthweight (CBW) centiles to diagnose FGR, decreasing the proportion of SB remaining unclassified.

This was a retrospective cohort study to classify SBs using the ReCoDe classification system. A random sample of SBs above 24 weeks’ gestational age was included, and relevant clinical, laboratory, and histopathological diagnoses were extracted from medical records. The birthweights were customized according to maternal height, weight, ethnicity, parity, fetal biological sex, andgestational age at diagnosis of SB to obtain CBW centiles. FGR was defined as CBW centiles <10 percentile.

The mean age of the 254 women included was 30.5 (standard deviation = 6.2) years, with 17% being <25 years and 9.1% being ≥40 years. The majority were multiparous, 12% grand multiparous. The mean body mass index at booking was 28.6 ± 5.6 kg/m2, with 31% being in the obese category (?30 kg/m2). FGR was the most common diagnosis (52%), followed by maternal diabetes (24.0%), placental abruption (16.5%), other major placental insufficiency (15.4%), lethal congenital anomalies (13.8%), and chorioamnionitis (13.8%). The most common primary diagnosis was FGR (37.0%), followed by congenital anomalies (13.8%), placental abruption (9.1%), and maternal diabetes (6.7%). FGR remained the leading primary diagnosis in non-anomalous babies (43%), with >63% with a secondary diagnosis. The most common secondary diagnosis associated with FGR was other placental insufficiency (23.4%), followed by abruption and maternal conditions. After applying the classification system, only 18 cases remained unclassified (7.1%).

Applying the ReCoDe classification with CBW centiles, we were able to classify most of our SBs, with only 7.1% remaining unclassified. Appropriate classification of SB is vital for understanding what went wrong, counselling bereaved families, planning future pregnancies, and improving perinatal care. Early identification of FGR will allow appropriate monitoring and timely delivery.

© 2025 Kazmi, Krishna, Aziz, Boumedjane, Taher, Olagundoye, et al., licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2025.71
2025-08-17
2026-03-13

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qmj/2025/3/qmj.2025.71.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2025.71&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Reinebrant H, Leisher S, Coory M, Henry S, Wojcieszek A, Gardener G, et al. Making stillbirths visible: a systematic review of globally reported causes of stillbirth. BJOG. 2018;125:(2):212–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14971
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Chong MYC, Alexander M. Estimating the timing of stillbirths in countries worldwide using a Bayesian hierarchical penalized splines regression model. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2024 Aug 1; 73:(4):902–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssc/qlae017
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baird D, Walker J, Thomson AM. The causes and prevention of stillbirths and first week deaths. III. A classification of deaths by clinical cause; the effect of age, parity and length of gestation on death rates by cause. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1954 Aug;61:(4):433–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1954.tb07507.x
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Raghuveer G. Perinatal deaths: relevance of Wigglesworth’s classification. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1992 Jan;6:(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.1992.tb00743.x
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Korteweg F, Gordijn S, Timmer A, Erwich J, Bergman K, Bouman K, et al. The Tulip classification of perinatal mortality: introduction and multidisciplinary inter-rater agreement. BJOG. 2006;113:(4):393–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00881.x
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Housseine N, Snieder A, Binsillim M, Meguid T, Browne JL, Rijken MJ. The application of WHO ICD-PM: feasibility for the classification of timing and causes of perinatal deaths in a busy birth centre in a low-income country. PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16:(1):e0245196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245196
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gardosi J, Kady SM, McGeown P, Francis A, Tonks A. Classification of stillbirth by Relevant Condition at Death (ReCoDe): population based cohort study. BMJ. 2005 Nov 10;331:(7525):1113–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38629.587639.7C
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, Williams M. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218:(2S):S609–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.011
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ego A, Zeitlin J, Batailler P, Cornec S, Fondeur A, Baran-Marszak M, et al. Stillbirth classification in population-based data and role of fetal growth restriction: the example of RECODE. BMC Pregnancy Chiidbirth. 2013 Dec;13::182. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-182
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Maducolil MK, Abid H, Lobo RM, Chughtai AQ, Afzal AM, Saleh HAH, et al. Risk factors and classification of stillbirth in a Middle Eastern population: a retrospective study. J Perinat Med. 2018 Dec 1;46:(9):1022–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2017-0274
     [Google Scholar]
  11. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2023.
  12. Heazell AEP, Siassakos D, Blencowe H, Burden C, Bhutta ZA, Cacciatore J, et al. Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences. Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387:(10018):604–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00836-3
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gordijn SJ, Korteweg FJ, Erwich JJHM, Holm JP, van Diem MT, Bergman KA, et al. A multilayered approach for the analysis of perinatal mortality using different classification systems. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Jun;144:(2):99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ejogrb.2009.01.012
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gardosi J, Hugh O. Stillbirth risk and smallness for gestational age according to Hadlock, INTERGROWTH-21st, WHO, and GROW fetal weight standards: analysis by maternal ethnicity and body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Nov 1;229:(5):547.e1-547.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.05.026
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Morris RK, Johnstone E, Lees C, Morton V, Smith G; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Investigation and care of a small- for-gestational-age fetus and a growth restricted fetus (green-top guideline no. 31). BJOG. 2024 Aug;131:(9):e31–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17814
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bukowski R, Hansen NI, Willinger M, Reddy UM, Parker CB, Pinar H, et al. Fetal growth and risk of stillbirth: a population-based case-control study. PLoS Med. 2014 Apr 22;11:(4):e1001633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001633
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, McCowan LME. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214:(4):509.e1-509.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hutcheon JA, Zhang X, Cnattingius S, Kramer MS, Platt RW. Customised birthweight percentiles: does adjusting for maternal characteristics matter? BJOG. 2008 Oct;115:(11):1397–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01870.x
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gardosi J, Clausson B, Francis A. The value of customised centiles in assessing perinatal mortality risk associated with parity and maternal size. BJOG. 2009 Sep;116:(10):1356–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02245.x
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bashir M, E. Abdel-Rahman M, Aboulfotouh M, Eltaher F, Omar K, Babarinsa I, et al. Prevalence of newly detected diabetes in pregnancy in Qatar, using universal screening. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 3; 13:(8):e0201247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201247
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Stefano L, Bottecchia M, Yargawa J, Akuze J, Haider MM, Galiwango E, et al. Stillbirth maternity care measurement and associated factors in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study. Popul Heath Metr.2021 Feb 8;19:(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00240-1
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Thornton HV, Cornish RP, Lawlor DA. Non-linear associations of maternal prepregnancy body mass index with risk of stillbirth, infant, and neonatal mortality in over 28 million births in the USA: a retrospective cohort study. eClinicalMedicine. 2023 Dec 1; 66::102351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102351
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2025.71
Loading
Relevant Condition at Death and customized birthweight centiles for stillbirth classification: A retrospective cohort study
Qatar Medical Journal 2025, 71 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2025.71
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2025.71
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2025.71
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Customized GROW chart, fetal growth restriction, Qatar, ReCoDe, SGA (small for gestation age), stillbirth

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error