Global burden of potentially life-threatening maternal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Baykemagn Fitiwi Tinsae,Abreha Girmatsion Fisseha,Zelelow Yibrah Berhe,Berhe Abadi Kidanemariam,Kahsay Alemayehu Bayray

Abstract

Abstract Background Potentially life-threatening maternal conditions (PLTCs) is an important proxy indicator of maternal mortality and the quality of maternal health services. It is helpful to monitor the rates of severe maternal morbidity to evaluate the quality of maternal care, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. This study aims to systematically identify and synthesize available evidence on PLTCs. Methods We searched studies in English from 2009‒2023 in PubMed, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Gateway, the POPLINE database, and the Science Direct website. The study team independently reviewed the illegibility criteria of the articles. Two reviewers independently appraised the included articles using the Joanna Briggs Instrument for observational studies. Disputes between the reviewers were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Meta-analysis was conducted in Stata version 16. The pooled proportion of PLTCs was calculated using the random effects model. The heterogeneity test was performed using the Cochrane Q test, and its level was determined using the I2 statistical result. Using Egger's test, the publication bias was assessed. Result Thirty-two cross-sectional, five case–control, and seven cohort studies published from 2009 to 2023 were included in the meta-analysis. The highest proportion of PLTC was 17.55% (95% CI: 15.51, 19.79) in Ethiopia, and the lowest was 0.83% (95% CI: 0.73, 0.95) in Iraq. The pooled proportion of PLTC was 6.98% (95% CI: 5.98–7.98). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence varied based on country income level: in low-income 13.44% (95% CI: 11.88–15.00) I2 = 89.90%, low-middle income 7.42% (95% CI: 5.99–8.86) I2 = 99.71%, upper-middle income 6.35% (95% CI: 4.21–8.50) I2 = 99.92%, and high-income 2.67% (95% CI: 2.34–2.99) I2 = 99.57%. Similarly, it varied based on the diagnosis criteria; WHO diagnosis criteria used 7.77% (95% CI: 6.10–9.44) I2 = 99.96% at P = 0.00, while the Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) diagnosis criteria used 2.19% (95% CI: 1.89–2.50) I2 = 99.41% at P = 0.00. Conclusion The pooled prevalence of PLTC is high globally, predominantly in low-income countries. The large disparity of potentially life-threatening conditions among different areas needs targeted intervention, particularly for women residing in low-income countries. The WHO diagnosis criteria minimize the underreporting of severe maternal morbidity. Trial registration CRD42023409229.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Reference89 articles.

1. Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Parpinelli MA, Haddad SM, Camargo RS, Pacagnella RC, et al. Brazilian network for the surveillance of maternal potentially life-threatening morbidity and maternal near-miss and a multidimensional evaluation of their long-term consequences. Reprod Health. 2009;6(1):1–10.

2. Souza P, Say L, Pattinson RC. Maternal near miss – towards a standard tool for monitoring the quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23:287–96.

3. Norhayati MN, Hussain N, Hazlina N, Sulaiman Z, Azman MY. Severe maternal morbidity and near misses in tertiary hospitals, Kelantan, Malaysia : a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(229):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2895-2.

4. World Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division. Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2019. 12 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal-mortality-2000-2017/en/.

5. Baqui AH, Mitra D, Moin MI, Naher N, Quaiyum MA, Tshefu A, et al. The burden of severe maternal morbidity and association with adverse birth outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: protocol for a prospective cohort study. J Glob Health. 2016;6(2):020601.

全球学者库

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"全球学者库"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前全球学者库共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2023 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3