Skip to main content

Table 1 General study characteristics

From: Incompleteness and misclassification of maternal death recording: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No

Study author & year of publication

Country

Income

Data collection period

Coverage

Study design

Comparator

Method of identifying maternal deaths

Study risk of bias

Meta analysise

1

(AIHWs, 2020) [4]

Australia

High

2018

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

CEMDa

Low

A, F

2

(Berdzuli et al., 2020) [7]

Georgia

High

2012

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Triangulation of data from different sources

Low

A, E, F

3

(Baeva et al., 2018) [6]

USA

High

2012

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Review of death records and data linkage

Medium

NA

4

(Boutin et al., 2021) [9]

Canada

High

2013—2017

Subnational – facility based

Cross-sectional

FBSS

Review of electronic medical records

Medium

NA

5

(Catalano et al., 2021) [11]

USA

High

2016

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

Pregnancy checkbox on death certificates

Data linkages (birth and foetal death registers)

Medium

NA

6

(Davis et al., 2017) [12]

USA

High

1987—2012

National – facility based

Cross-sectional

MMR in 1978 to 2008 (before introduction of pregnancy checkbox)

Review of national statistics records of mortality and natality files

High

NA

7

(Deneux-Tharaux et al., 2005) [13]

USA, Finland and France

High

1999—2000

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Data linkage (birth and foetal death registers)

Low

F

8

(Donati et al., 2018) [15]

Italy

High

2006—2012

Subnational—facility based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Data linkages (pregnancy or pregnancy-related hospitalizations records)

Medium

NA

9

(Horon, 2005) [19]

USA

High

1993—2001

Subnational – population based

Nested case–control

CRVS

Data linkages (birth and foetal death registers)

Low

A, D, F

10

(Laura et al., 2020) [24]

Switzerland

High

2005—2014

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Data linkages (birth and foetal death registers)

Low

A, B, F

11

(MBRRACE-UK, 2020) [26]

United Kingdom

High

2016—2018

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

CEMD

Low

A, F

12

(Sesmero et al., 2016) [34]

Spain

High

2012

Subnational—facility based

Cross-sectional

FBSS

Questionnaire filled by heads of hospitals asking about maternal deaths information

Medium

NA

13

(O’Hare et al., 2020) [30]

Ireland

High

2016—2018

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

CEMD

Low

NA

14

(Vangen et al., 2017) [37]

Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden

High

2005—2013

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Triangulating data from different sources

Low

A, F

15

(Abalos et al., 2019) d [1]

Argentina

Upper-Middle

2014

National – facility based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Review of clinical records

Medium

A, B, E, F

16

(Bess Constantén et al., 2018) d [8]

Cuba

Upper-Middle

2013

national – population-based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Review of clinical records

Low

A, B, F

17

(Kodan et al., 2017) [21]

Suriname

Upper-Middle

2010–2014

National – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

RAMOSb

Low

A, E, F

18

(Lin et al., 2019a) [25]

China, Taiwan Province of China

Upper-Middle

2010—2017

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

Pregnancy checkbox on death certificates

Review of pregnancy checkbox field on death certificate

Medium

NA

19

(Wu et al., 2015) [47]

China, Taiwan Province of China

Upper-Middle

2000—2009

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

Data linkage of CRVS with insurance claims data

Medium

A, E, F

20

(Abouchadi et al., 2018) [2]

Morocco

Lower-Middle

Jan 2013 – Sept 2014

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

RAMOS

Low

A, B, C, D, F

21

(Anwar et al., 2018) [5]

Pakistan

Lower-Middle

Jun 2015 – May 2016

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

MMR from the 1.5 years before the study

follow up of pregnant women until 42 days post termination of pregnancy

High

NA

22

(Boyd et al., 2017) [10]

Haiti

Low

2014—2015

Subnational – facility based

Cross-sectional

FBSS

Review of clinical records and dossiers

High

A, F

23

(Garces et al., 2012) [16]

Philippines

Lower-Middle

2008

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

CRVS

RAMOS

Low

A, B, F

24

(Kodio et al., 2002) [22]

Senegal

Lower-Middle

1984—1995

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

HDSS

HDSS

Low

A, F

25

(Mswia et al., 2003) [27]

Tanzania

Lower-Middle

July 1993 – Dec 1999

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

HDSS

An active reporting system based on a network of respected individuals within each community

Medium

A, F

26

(Mwaniki et al., 2020) [29]

Kenya

Lower-Middle

Jan 2015 – June 2018

Subnational – facility based

Cross-sectional

FBSS

MDSRc

High

A, F

27

(Qomariyah et al., 2020) [32]

Indonesia

Lower-Middle

2016

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

DHIS

review of routine HIS in addition to asking village informants

Low

A, B, C, D, F

28

(Songane & Bergström, 2002) [35]

Mozambique

Lower-Middle

Aug 1996 – July 1997

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

DHIS

Triangulation from different data sources

Low

A, F

29

(Zakariah et al., 2009) [48]

Ghana

Lower-Middle

2002

Subnational – population based

Cross-sectional

DHIS

RAMOS

Low

A, C, F

  1. a CEMD Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths
  2. b RAMOS Reproductive Age Mortality Survey
  3. cMDSR: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response
  4. dManuscript in Spanish
  5. eA = included in meta-analysis of incompleteness, B = included in meta-analysis of completeness by cause of death; C = included in meta-analysis of completeness by place of death; D = included in meta-analysis of completeness by time of death relative to delivery, E = included in sensitivity meta-analysis, F = included in analysis of under-estimation