Stillbirth Facts

One of ANZSA’s key roles is to improve and conduct research into stillbirth in the Australia and New Zealand region. Research projects to date have been based around a range of areas such as causes and risk factors, reduced fetal movement, unexplained stillbirth, investigation, audit, classification, autopsy examination, and bereavement care in a maternity hospital setting.

We have included a suite of general information outlining the key facts surrounding stillbirth research for you. This information is the basis of a more comprehensive report based on a systematic literature review which is currently being undertaken by ANZSA with funding provided by the Stillbirth Foundation Australia and the Department of Health and Ageing.

We hope this can enhance your knowledge, understanding and awareness of stillbirth in Australia and New Zealand.

If you would like to find out more and/or would like clarification please contact us at


Stillbirth Overview


The purpose of this overview is to provide general information to enhance knowledge, understanding and awareness of stillbirth in Australia and New Zealand on the causes, risk factors, investigation, audit and classification and bereavement support for parents in the setting of maternity hospital care. This overview forms the basis of a more comprehensive report based on a systematic literature review which is currently being undertaken by ANZSA with funding provided by the Stillbirth Foundation Australia and the Department of Health and Ageing. The final report from the review will conclude by summarising the implications for practice and research toward the reduction of stillbirth in Australia and New Zealand. In addition to this review, a number of studies are currently underway which address current gaps in our understanding of stillbirth. For a summary of these studies please refer to the ANZSA stillbirth studies registry.

We hope you find this overview helpful and we welcome your feedback.

This overview was initially prepared by:
Vicki Flenady, Tomasina Stacey, Liz Davis, Emma Kirkwood, Ros Richardson, Yee Khong, Adrian Charles.
Last edited October 20th 2008.


Summary of key points

While infant mortality rates have declined in Australia over the past two decades there has been no reduction in the rate of stillbirth. Stillbirths account for 70% of perinatal deaths. Over 2,000 babies are stillborn in Australia and New Zealand every year occurring at a rate of approximately 7 out of every 1000 births; approximately 6 babies each day.

Stillbirth rates for Indigenous women are over twice that of non-Indigenous women.

Major risk factors for stillbirth (many of which are modifiable) are: overweight and obesity, advanced maternal age (over 35), maternal smoking, and primiparity. Prolonged pregnancy is also a modifiable risk factor for antepartum stillbirth. The presence of fetal growth restriction in approximately 40-50% of unexplained stillbirth is an important consideration for future prevention strategies.

The main categories of stillbirth according to the Perinatal Society of Australia Perinatal Death Classification (PSANZ-PDC) system are: for singleton pregnancies, accounting for over 70% of stillbirths: Unexplained antepartum death (28%); Congenital abnormality (20%); Maternal conditions (13%); and Spontaneous preterm (10%). In multiple pregnancies (contributing 84% to the total): Specific perinatal conditions (mainly twin-twin transfusion) (35%); Spontaneous preterm (24%); Unexplained antepartum death (15%); and Congenital abnormality (11%).

It is estimated that unexplained stillbirth is now 10 times that of SIDS  500 unexplained stillbirths each year compared to 50 SIDS deaths. The high proportion of unexplained stillbirth is a major barrier to further reduction in the rates of stillbirth. The lack of diagnosis leaves little clues for parents and care providers struggling with decisions about future pregnancies.

Many stillbirths are not fully investigated and therefore important factors to further understand why the baby died may be missed. The recommended investigations within the PSANZ stillbirth protocol should be followed in all cases of stillbirth. Exclusion of the presence of infection is an important component of this protocol.

Autopsy and placental pathological examination remain the gold standard investigation for stillbirth. Parents who have a stillborn baby should be offered the option of an autopsy and given sufficient information (both written and oral) to enable them to make the decision which is right for them.

Stillbirth is devastating for families and one which is often accompanied by long lasting grief and loss of normal family functioning; the psychosocial burden of stillbirth to the family and the broader community should not be underestimated. While high level evidence on the best model of support for parents following a perinatal death is lacking, maternity hospitals need to ensure that mechanisms (including training and support for clinical staff and processes to ensure optimal transition to community support) are put in place to meet the individual needs of parents and families.



Stillbirth and perinatal mortality statistics

For perinatal reports from across Australia and New Zealand please click here.

Globally, over 3 million babies are stillborn every year with the vast majority occurring in developing countries (1). While less frequent in developed countries (<1% of births), the large contribution of stillbirth to overall perinatal deaths combined with static or increasing rates over the past decade (2), means stillbirth remains a major public health problem in these settings.

In Australia for the year 2011, based on data from the National Perinatal Statistics Unit derived from State and Territory perinatal data collections (3) there were 301,810 births, and 2,992 perinatal deaths giving a perinatal mortality rate (PMR) of 9.9 per 1000 births. The perinatal mortality comprised of 2,220 fetal deaths, giving a fetal death rate (FDR) of 7.4 per 1000 births, and 772 neonatal deaths, giving a neonatal death rate (NDR) of 2.6 per 1000 livebirths (of 299,588 total livebirths). The PMR of babies born to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander mothers remains almost twice that of babies born to other mothers (18.6 versus 9.4) (3).

In New Zealand in 2004, there were 58,723 births and 666 perinatal deaths, giving a PMR of 11.2 per 1000 (8.5 and 3.4/1000 for fetal and neonatal death rates respectively) (4).

Differences in definitions and reporting processes across regions within Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) make comparisons of perinatal mortality rates difficult, and it is hoped that these differences will be addressed by the various reporting agencies. The NPSU report Australias Mothers and Babies also included the PMR for Australia calculated according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) which is based on death certificate data for the same year. This rate was reported as 8.5 per 1000 (FDR 5.4, NDR 3.1). This difference is thought to be due to the differences in definition and reporting processes by the two sources with better ascertainment achieved by the perinatal data collections. At a round table meeting of ANZSA and NPSU in November 2007 a decision was made to include only stillbirth rates derived from the perinatal collections in the annual NPSU report Australias Mothers and Babies.

According to ABS data, the PMR in Australia declined by nearly two-thirds over the period from 1973 - 2000 from 23 per 1000 to the current rate of approximately 8 per 1000 (5). The fall in the neonatal death component (a 75% reduction from 12.6 to 3 per 1000) was greater than the fetal death reduction which fell by 50% from 11 to 5 per 1000 births. Fetal death after the onset of labour has decreased by two-thirds. Antepartum deaths decreased to a lesser extent (46%) (5) and currently make up approximately 65% of all fetal deaths (6). These patterns are similar to developed countries and have resulted in a focus of attention towards reducing the antepartum stillbirth rate.



Causes and risk factors for stillbirth

The reduction in the PMR seen in earlier periods was largely due to improved intrapartum care resulting in less deaths from intrapartum asphyxia and birth trauma, and also a reduction in deaths from isoimmunisation and diabetes (7, 8). Congenital abnormality, unexplained fetal death and spontaneous preterm births have now emerged as the leading causes of perinatal death in developed country settings (9-12).

While different classifications systems make comparisons of the causes of stillbirth across and within countries difficult, the main reported causes of stillbirth internationally currently include: congenital abnormality, abruption, hypertension, diabetes and other maternal conditions, and maternal/fetal infection (8).

In approximately 30-50% of stillbirths, a cause of death is not identified (8, 13-15).

Data from a current ANZSA NHMRC funded study of 3,500 stillbirths over the period 2000-2003 in three States of Australia (Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia) demonstrates the main causes of death in an Australian population (15). In this large study, according to the Perinatal Society of Australia Perinatal Death Classification (PSANZ-PDC), the four major categories of stillbirth in singleton pregnancies, accounting for over 70% of stillbirths, were: Unexplained antepartum death (28%); Congenital abnormality (20%); Maternal conditions (13%); and Spontaneous preterm (10%). In multiple preganancies the main categories (contributing 84% to the total) were: Specific perinatal conditions (mainly twin-twin transfusion) (35%); Spontaneous preterm (24%); Unexplained antepartum death (15%); and Congenital abnormality (11%) (15).

Infection is acknowledged as an important contributor to stillbirth even when clinical markers for infection may not exist (16, 17). Although there are increasing research data to support the importance of infection in stillbirth, due to the lack of routine investigation for infection in many stillbirths, the magnitude of the contribution of infection is currently not well understood (16) and very few stillbirths in Australia are currently attributed to infection.

In pregnancy, thrombophilic disorders are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, early and late fetal demise, recurrent pregnancy loss and fetal growth restriction (18, 19). While there is limited data on the strength of the association between inherited thrombophilic disorders and adverse pregnancy outcome such as stillbirth and controversy remains, recent reviews have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the risk of stillbirth associated with: APC resistance(18, 20); Factor V Leiden mutation (18, 20-22); Protein C deficiency(20); Protein S deficiency (18, 20, 21); Prothrombin G20210 mutation (20, 21); and MTHFR (20). One review also demonstrated statistically significant associations with these thrombophilic conditions and pre-eclampsia which was strengthened in the analysis for severe pre-eclampsia (20). Maternal thrombophilic disorders are a potentially important cause of stillbirth and, as investigation for these conditions are often not routinely performed, it may be responsible for a proportion of unexplained stillbirth. Ideally the identification of thrombophilia following an apparently unexplained stillbirth would result in intervention in future pregnancies to reduce the risk (23).

Risk factors for stillbirth include: smoking, obesity, advanced maternal age (over 35) and primparity emerged as the most important risk factors for stillbirth (2). Prolonged pregnancy is also a modifiable risk factor for antepartum stillbirth, which affects about 1 per 1000 on-going pregnancies at 41 weeks, 1 in 500 at 42 weeks and 1 in 200 at 43 weeks. These risks can be avoided by routine induction post-dates (2).

Other reported factors which may increase the risk of stillbirth include: previous miscarriage,stillbirth or perinatal death and previous caesarean section (2), lower socioeconomic status (SES), alcohol and drug use (8, 24). In the USA, black women are at increased risk of stillbirth (8), as are Indigenous women in Australia where the risk is over twice that of non-Indigenous women (25).

Contributing factors relating to care (also called sub-optimal, avoidable or suspected preventable factors) have been reported in approximately 30-50% of perinatal deaths and therefore also require consideration as part of routine review of perinatal deaths by hospital committees. The report of the inquiry into Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services at the King Edward Memorial Hospital (26) highlighted the importance of clinical audit of perinatal deaths as part of ongoing clinical practice improvement.


Reduced fetal movements and stillbirth

Regular fetal movement is widely accepted as a sign of fetal wellbeing. Almost all pregnant women perceive fetal movements and engage in self-screening by reporting their concerns of decreased fetal movements (DFM). Maternal reporting of DFM is a common pregnancy phenomenon occurring in between 4 - 15 percent of pregnancies in the third trimester . Pregnancies in which the woman consistently reports regular fetal movements have very low morbidity and mortality and conversely those with maternal reporting of DFM have been associated with stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, fetal distress, preterm birth, oligohydramnios and fetal abnormality mainly affecting the neurological or musculoskeletal system (27)

Fetal movement monitoring has been proposed as a screening tool to detect pregnancies at increased risk of late gestation sudden unexpected fetal death. This proposition is supported by the observation that as many as 50% of women perceive a gradual reduction of fetal movements several days before an intrauterine death (28-31).

However, there is little agreement as to what constitutes normal fetal movements (32-34) and the best methods for detection and management of a fetus at risk on the basis of DFM remains controversial (33). The use of maternal perception of DFM as screening tool is further complicated by the wide variation in the amount of fetal movements perceived by the women with reports ranging from 4-94% of movements identified by ultrasound.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, formal fetal movement counting, which involves providing instructions to the woman about how to count and record movements, was a routine part of antenatal care in many settings. This practice reduced dramatically following the report, in 1989, of the single randomised controlled trial which concluded that formal monitoring of fetal movements did not reduce antepartum stillbirths and placed an increased burden on hospital resources (35). Current guidelines in the United Kingdom, the US or Norway do not recommended formal fetal movement counting. However, this remains somewhat controversial and others continue to recommend fetal movement counting as a part of routine antenatal care (28, 36, 37).

The NICE Guidelines in the UK, while not supporting formal fetal movement counting, do recommend that all women reporting DFM should be assessed for fetal wellbeing. However, no guidance is provided on what constitutes appropriate assessment. There is currently no randomised controlled trials evidence on any aspect of the initial evaluation or further management of pregnancies with decreased fetal movements. As a consequence, wide variation in management between populations, institutions and practitioners within single institutions is apparent 6;9;13;16;26;27;35-37 (+ ref Heazell) (38). The Cochrane systematic review on the topic (including the only available trial mentioned above) acknowledges the lack of evidence to inform practice and recommends further research to determine methods of detection of DFM and optimal management strategies (39).

A recent survey of Obstetricians in Australia and New Zealand (40) showed wide variation in practices in the detection and management of women with decreased fetal movement reflecting clinical uncertainty which stems from the current lack of high quality evidence. Approximately 30% of responders use Kick Charts as a part of routine care.

We are currently embarking on a large-scale prospective study across hospitals in Australia and New Zealand for raising DFM awareness using a mobile phone tool for pregnant women. See 'My Baby's Movements: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of decreased fetal movement awareness to reduce stillbirth' on our Research Projects page.



Unexplained stillbirth

With decreasing perinatal mortality rates, the relative contribution of antepartum fetal death where no cause for the death can be identified [unexplained antepartum fetal deaths (UAFD)] appears to be on the increase (11). The rates of UAFD reported internationally differ according to the definition used however, it is estimated at 1-2 per 1000 births (41). The wide variation in the reported contribution of unexplained stillbirth from 15% (42) to 71% (11) has been attributed to the classification system (11, 43) and the thoroughness of investigation and definition employed (41, 44). Lower rates of UAFD have been attributed to more stringent diagnostic criteria used, specifically autopsy and placental pathology examination (29).

Data from the current NHMRC grant has revealed a UAFD rate of 2.0 per 1 000 births (15). This rate is almost ten times the current rate of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (45).

Using the number of ongoing pregnancies as the denominator, the risk of unexplained antepartum fetal death is shown to increase in late pregnancy (2, 46). Data from our current NHMRC grant has demonstrated that the contribution of UAFD increased after 23 weeks gestation reaching a maximum of 60% in term singleton stillbirths (37-41 weeks) and 49% at 35-36 weeks for stillbirth in a multiple pregnancy (47).

Several studies have been conducted both nationally and internationally to identify risk factors for UAFD. However, due to small numbers, differing methods including definitions and classification of fetal deaths, there is limited agreement on the reported risk factors. Factors which have been reported include: cigarette smoking in pregnancy, overweight or obesity (29); advanced maternal age (29, 48); low maternal age (31); advanced maternal age (29, 48, 49) duplicated?; primiparity and multiparity>3 (48); low socioeconomic status (29, 31, 48, 49); subclinical infection (31, 50); fetal growth restriction (11, 29, 49, 51, 52); sub-optimal antenatal care (11); polyhydramnios, cord problems, antenatal fetal distress (53, 54); rural origin, private accommodation status; higher systolic blood pressure (55); low blood pressure (56), and previous caesarean section (57).

The presence of fetal growth restriction in approximately 40-50% of unexplained stillbirth (13, 14) suggests the potential for prevention if these "at risk" infants can be detected in the antenatal period where appropriate intervention may be undertaken to reduce the risk.


Investigation, audit and classification of stillbirth

Determining the causes of stillbirth is an essential part of quality care for parents and families. The purposes of investigations are to provide an explanation for the death of their baby to the parents and family who need to know what went wrong to relieve suffering, to enable appropriate counselling about recurrence risk, and to inform the management of future pregnancies. An accurate cause of death may assist in the parents grieving process by providing an explanation for the death and other information on the circumstances surrounding the death which may alleviate feelings of guilt (41, 46, 48, 52, 58). Even when a cause of death is not identified exclusion of some possible causes is valuable as a reassurance to parents and to inform the planning and management of future pregnancies (8).

Stillbirth audit and classification in Australia and New Zealand

The PSANZ-PMG has developed clinical practice guidelines for audit of perinatal deaths (23) which were disseminated across ANZ in 2005. The guidelines recommend comprehensive non-selective investigations for stillbirths and detailed instructions on the application of the clinical classification system for stillbirth and neonatal deaths. Due to the often complex nature of causation of stillbirth, the clinico-pathological correlation is best accomplished by discussion of a multidisciplinary team (11, 16, 23, 59-64) which includes obstetricians, paediatricians, neonatologists, perinatal pathologists, geneticists, midwives, and neonatal nurses. Therefore, the PSANZ guideline recommends review of all perinatal deaths by a multidisciplinary team.

Stillbirths first became notifiable in Scotland in 1940 (65), and in 1954 the classification developed by Sir Dugald Baird and his colleagues in Aberdeen for the purpose of audit and surveillance was published (66). Subsequently, numerous systems have emerged. In a recent search, we identified 33 new systems (7, 11, 41, 42, 66-94) and a further 12 modifications of these systems (11, 95-105) for the classification of stillbirths causes and associated conditions and/or suboptimal care

The majority were designed for both stillbirths and neonatal deaths, however three systems have been designed specifically for stillbirths (42, 83, 88), the remainder also included neonatal deaths and two systems included post-neonatal deaths; one up to hospital discharge (74) and the other up to twelve months of age (81). While it is important to analyse the causes of perinatal death according to its components of stillbirth and neonatal death (106), a system specifically designed to incorporate both groups enables interpretation of differences in the rates and causation across regions arising from variation in definition, reporting and registration practices for perinatal deaths (106).

In acknowledging the need and for a systematic approach to audit and review of perinatal deaths in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), PSANZ endorsed the establishment of the Perinatal Mortality Group (PSANZ-PMG) (107) in March 2003. In the absence of an available classification system which suited the needs of this group, a new classification system (PSANZ Perinatal Death Classification (PSANZ-PDC) (69) was developed based on those used in Queensland and South Australia which were based on the Whitfield system (70).

The purpose of the classification is to determine the single most important obstetric factor which leads to the chain of events which resulted in the death and in doing so aims to identify avoidable stillbirth. The classification has been shown to have a high level of clinical agreement (108) and results in approximately 30% unexplained antepartum deaths (10) which has been suggested as a measure for an acceptable classification system (41). In a recent evaluation of six systems across seven countries, the PSANZ-PDC performed well (109).

Within this classification, fetal deaths prior to the onset of labour or membrane rupture where no cause for the death was able to be determined and, following review of all relevant available clinical information are assigned to the category of Unexplained antepartum death. However, unlike unexplained infant death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), the Unexplained antepartum death category is not dependent on the level of investigation and does not include the requirement for an autopsy examination. This may result in misclassification and overestimation of the contribution of UAFD (29).


Stillbirth investigation protocols - current evidence

Formal protocols are intended to guide caregivers in stillbirth investigation, to ensure the quality and consistency of the investigation which will enable the validity of comparisons of trends across regions and over time. A recent systematic review of protocols, or component of protocols, for determining the causes of stillbirth by Corabian and Scott (110) identified five formal protocols currently in use, including the PSANZ stillbirth protocol (23). A comparison of the components of these protocols has identified some variation.

However, all protocols recommended placental pathology and autopsy. In the review of individual studies to determine appropriate investigations, the authors identified 53 studies potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 46 were excluded due to lack of information in the published reports to adequately assess eligibility, poor methodological quality, or the definition of stillbirths which did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving seven included studies (111-117). All included studies evaluated autopsy and placental pathology.

The results confirmed the value of these investigations. In the five retrospective studies (113-115, 117, 118) autopsy findings were shown to: confirm clinical findings in 29% to 89% of cases; change the diagnosis in 10% to 38%; and provide additional information in 4 to 24%. Despite this, the cause of death remained unexplained in up to 40% of stillbirths. In the two prospective studies (111, 116) placental pathology was shown to confirm clinical or autopsy findings or both in up to 75% of cases and were diagnostic in 23% to 46%.

The authors of this review concluded that, while autopsy and placental pathology were valuable, due to a lack of high quality data on the value of other investigations, "no formal scientific judgement could be made on which is the most appropriate protocol for stillbirth investigations or which components should be considered for the most relevant and efficient investigative protocol"(110).

Despite methodological concerns raised by Corabian and Scott, in recent years several studies on stillbirth protocols have consistently demonstrated that sufficient valuable information is obtained to justify the use of comprehensive investigation protocols (9, 61, 114, 119-123). While results for individual components of the investigation protocols across studies are conflicting, all studies have reported that formal protocols provide useful information (either a cause of death or additional valuable information for future pregnancy counselling) in approximately 30-50% of stillbirths.

However, these studies also report a substantial proportion of stillbirths remaining unexplained, ranging from 60% (61) to 36% (124). Differences in the components of the protocols, definition of stillbirth, the classification systems, and study design (population or hospital based) render comparisons and interpretation of the findings of these studies problematic. The two largest studies to date come from the Wisconsin Stillbirth Surveillance Program (61) and Incerpi et al (124). The WiSSP is a regional referral program for investigation of stillbirth which has reported prospectively collected population based data study on investigation and causes of death in over 1000 stillbirths (defined as gestation >20 weeks or over 375gms birthweight). This series has shown that using a non-selective approach to the investigation of fetal causes of death improved the yield of helpful information in 50% of stillbirths. The investigators reported that all individual components of the protocol yielded critical information, whereby exclusion of any single component would result in missed diagnoses in 2% (family history) to 15% (autopsy and placental pathology) of cases. However, the focus of the WiSSP protocol is fetal investigation and the extent to which maternal investigation (eg for infection, or other medical conditions) is undertaken is unclear apart from the Kleihauer-Betke test for maternal-fetal haemorrhage.

The other study (124), a retrospective study of over 700 stillbirths at a single institution, showed that while the use of a comprehensive protocol resulted in a high yield from autopsy and placental pathology, other investigations including the Kleihauer-Betke and maternal screening for congenital infection was low. The finding of low yield for the Kleihauer-Betke test is in conflict with other reports (122, 125). The overall autopsy rate in this series was 60%, and the proportion of unexplained stillbirth was 36%. A lower number of unexplained fetal deaths was reported for stillbirths with an autopsy than those without (31% v 44%). A hospital based study by Lim et al examined the value of a selective approach to investigation based on the presence of certain obvious causes of death (123). In this small series of 55 stillbirths with an autopsy rate of only 28%, the investigators reported that 38% of cases remained unexplained, similar to that of the non-selective approach.

There is currently no available data on the value of either a selective or non-selective protocol for investigation of stillbirths in an Australian setting. A large-scale prospective study is currently under way across hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. See 'ANZSA Investigating Causes of Stillbirth: a prospective cohort study examining use and effectiveness of a comprehensive investigation protocol' on our Research Projects page.


PSANZ Stillbirth investigation protocol

The PSANZ guidelines recommend a comprehensive non-selective stillbirth investigation protocol. While it is acknowledged that compliance with the protocol may depend on the particular circumstances of the death (e.g. family wishes and access to services), using a selective investigative approach may result in missed important diagnoses (61), therefore the guideline recommends that clinicians adopt the non-selective approach as the standard and debate the relative merits of not following this approach on an individual case basis. Unfortunately, due to a lack of information about the value of many of the recommend investigations, these investigations are largely based on consensus of the guideline development working party and not evidence. As a result, there is some clinical controversy about the recommendations and unwillingness by clinicians to follow the recommendations. Further research is urgently need to determine the best approach to investigation of stillbirth.

Investigation of stillbirth in Australia

While no information is available on the yield of investigations for stillbirth in ANZ, preliminary data from the current ongoing NHMRC study on almost 200 stillbirths provides some indication of current practices in investigation. In three states of Australia over the period 2000-2003 (pre dissemination of the PSANZ guidelines), a low rate for a number of the currently recommended core investigation for stillbirths is evident as follows: autopsy 45% (54% for unexplained stillbirths); placental histopathology 45%; vaginal cultures 5%; amniocentesis for culture <1%, amniocentesis for chromosomal analysis <2%; Kleihauer-Betke 60%; external examination of the baby by clinician 60%; Clinical photographs 30%; Glycosolated haemoglobin (HBA1c) 40%; maternal full blood count and blood group and antibodies 75%, thrombophilia screening 20% (126). The extent to which this apparently low level of investigation is artificially inflating the number of unexplained stillbirths in Australia is not known.

Costs of stillbirth investigations

There is very limited information currently available to enable consideration of the cost benefit of stillbirth investigation protocols, or their individual components. Michalski et al (120) reported a cost consequence analysis from the Wisconsin Stillbirth Service Program (WiSSP) (61) which showed the real cost of a comprehensive stillbirth protocol was $1450USD per assessment or approximately $12USD per cared-for pregnancy. In this series of almost 1500 stillbirths, new relevant information was identified in 51% of stillbirths as a result of the protocol. The authors concluded that the comprehensive protocol should become a part of routine antenatal care. Another study (123) estimated that a selective approach to investigation of stillbirths would reduce the costs of investigation in 30% of cases without compromising the yield of investigation. There is currently no data available on costs to enable consideration of the cost benefit of stillbirth investigations in an Australian or New Zealand setting.


Autopsy examination

Value of autopsy

The autopsy examination is the gold standard for identification of the cause of perinatal death (127); diagnostic utility of the perinatal autopsy has been repeatedly demonstrated (128). One comprehensive review of 27 studies found perinatal autopsy to change diagnosis or provide additional findings in 22-76% of cases (128). In another review of 53 studies across a range of health care settings, diagnostic errors detected at perinatal autopsy showed a median error rate in pre-autopsy diagnosis of 23.5% for major errors (clinically missed diagnoses involving a principal underlying disease or primary cause of death) and 9% for Class 1 errors (major error that, had they been detected during life, "would", "could", "possibly" or "might" have affected patient prognosis or outcome).

The recent systematic review of stillbirth investigations (110) found that while the evidence base for many recommended investigations is in doubt, autopsy and placental pathology make a valuable diagnostic contribution. The reviewers concluded that data derived from the review may be "helpful in counselling parents who are considering the difficult decision of whether or not to consent to a post-mortem examination following a stillbirth" (110). In addition to the value of information obtained at autopsy in the planning and management of future pregnancies (129) autopsy may have long-term psychological implications for parents. Parents, mothers in particular, often attribute the death of their child to their own actions (130, 131). Autopsy findings may give reassurance that they are not to blame and assist in grief integation (130). Some parents may regret the decision to have an autopsy, particularly when no cause of death is identified, and some may find comfort in an altruistic perspective where no cause is found after autopsy examination (131).

A study in WA by Dr Buccilli and Charles confirmed the findings of the value of the perinatal autopsy in an Australian context (132). In this study, a total 98 of the 167 stillbirths (58.7%) had an autopsy performed. Examination of the quality of autopsy, using a modified scoring system (117), revealed that in 25% the autopsy confirmed clinical diagnoses; in 21% the autopsy findings changed the diagnosis; in 31% some extra information to the original diagnosis was identified; and in 23% the findings were inconclusive. A more recent study from Western Australia of 1619 fetal deaths revealed 49% having had complete autopsy investigation. Following autopsy 22% of these deaths were explained and a further 18% were identified as having fetal growth restriction. In addition, of the 42% of deaths which were unexplained on the death certificate, 65% were explained after autopsy investigation (44). Based on these findings, it is evident that the cause of death recorded on perinatal death certificates without an autopsy are often misleading and therefore may jeopardise the quality of research and audit activities and subsequent public health policy based on these data (118, 133-135).

Perinatal autopsy is important for education, training and to ensure high standards in perinatal pathology (136-138)


Autopsy quality

There is limited research on the quality of perinatal autopsies however, the available data suggests that approximately half may not reach minimum standards (62, 139). The post-mortem examination of an infant is very different to that performed on an adult (8, 16, 63, 64), and ideally should be performed by a paediatric pathologist. Pathologists with paediatric training find a higher incidence of causes of death in infants (112) and provide a much higher proportion of adequate reports (139, 140). The Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirth and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI) in the United Kingdom have reported that the causes of death based on perinatal/paediatric pathologists reports are infrequently revised (11). Cartlidge et al demonstrated an association with higher quality autopsy and the number of perinatal and infant deaths where the main cause of death was identified (112). Understandably, the ethics of approaching parents for consent where a quality post-mortem service is not available has been questioned (127). There are currently no guidelines for ANZ on quality and minimum standards for perinatal autopsies.

Decline in autopsy rates

An optimal perinatal autopsy rate of 75% is recommended by the Royal College of Pathologists (136). However, the perinatal autopsy rate has steadily declined over recent years in many regions. Perinatal autopsy rates vary across jurisdictions in Australia. The rates in our previous study across three States in 2000 were 39%, 48% and 70% overall, and 96%, 59% and 62% for unexplained antepartum deaths (10). In our current NHMRC funded population based study, the overall unexplained stillbirth autopsy rate in singletons over the period 2000-2003 was 45%; consistent across the three participating states. In Queensland, the autopsy rate for stillbirths has declined by 50% from the period 1997-2003 to the current rate of 30% (141). The recent perinatal autopsy rate in Tasmania was 7% (142).

Reasons for the decline

While research into the determinants of the decreasing perinatal autopsy rate is limited, consent is considered a major factor (137, 143, 144). Adverse publicity following the inquiries into autopsy practices in the United Kingdom and the NSW Institute of Forensic Pathology (129) are thought to have affected clinicians willingness to seek consent and parents acceptance of the procedure (130). Although the inquiries led to improved practices, complexity in the consent process also increased and this may be a deterrent to both clinicians and parents (145). Workforce shortages in clinical care settings and pathology are also limiting adequate autopsy rates (138).


Information and communication about perinatal autopsy

All hospital perinatal autopsy examinations require written consent from the parents following informed discussion(138). However, consent for autopsy is difficult for both clinicians and parents. Parents face an apparently intrusive process and are required to understand detailed consent procedures in a state of grief and clinicians are reluctant to place further burden on the parents (138, 146). Parents may think an autopsy will mutilate their baby (131), that their baby has suffered enough or the parents may have religious objections (130). In most cases, the medical consultant will approach the parents for consent (131), however, midwives, nurses, social workers and pathologists often have a role in providing information to assist in decision-making (130, 131, 147).

Two surveys have examined attitudes of staff to perinatal autopsy (143, 148). Both studies indicate that the attitudes of staff and the experience level of staff exert important influences on consent to autopsy. The Australian survey of staff by Khong et al (143) showed that while obstetricians and neonatologists were not averse to seeking consent midwives and neonatal nurses were reluctant to do so. Obstetricians and neonatologists rated nurses and midwives as influential in parents decisions around autopsy. However, clinicians report feeling inadequate talking to parents about autopsy, and may avoid discussion due to compassion and their lack of confidence to provide care following a perinatal death (137, 143). Research into parents perspectives and experiences on perinatal autopsy is very limited. However, it does appear that parents may regret their decision about autopsy and that this may be related to inadequate information and communication at the time of consent (131).

Two small studies have reported the frequency of parents regret about the decision for autopsy on their baby or infant with conflicting results (130, 131). McHaffie et al, in interviews with parents after a neonatal death, reported that no parent expressed regret about the decision. However, in the survey by Rankin et al (130) of 148 women after pregnancy or infant loss (including miscarriage, termination, stillbirth, neonatal or post-neonatal death), approximately 10% regretted their decision; more parents who had declined an autopsy regretted the decision than parents who had agreed. This survey also showed that 80% of parents would agree to a post-mortem examination if asked (130). Therefore, clinician reluctance to seek consent due to compassionate reasons may be misplaced.

Other factors which may affect clinician willingness to approach parents for consent for paediatric and perinatal deaths include: lower gestation at death (143, 149); discipline and seniority of clinicians (148); ambivalence about the value of an autopsy (112); and lack of technical understanding of the autopsy procedure. Parents enduring powerful negative experiences such as the stillbirth of their baby may not recall information given to them (150) which may lead to negative feelings towards care providers for poor communication increasing parental distress. Staff need specific training to know how to respond appropriately to bereaved parents following stillbirth (151).

The paucity of well conducted research on communication and consent for autopsy in stillbirths does not permit reliable conclusions to be drawn. Major limitations of the current research includes: small numbers studied; combining the populations of stillbirths and neonatal deaths; and the use of parent groups as the sampling frame which may result in an overestimate of negative outcomes and experiences of parents (152). The situation of a stillbirth (often an unexpected event in the antenatal period) differs significantly from that of a neonatal death (often death occurs after a period of time in an intensive care nursery). Therefore, it stands to reason that communication and information needs of parents are quite different and each are deserving of focused research.


Pilot data autopsy communication and information and planned study

Pilot data on experiences and views of parents about autopsy consent were obtained through the consultation process to update the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) Mortality Audit Guidelines. The views and experiences of bereaved parents and their satisfaction with information provided to them around the time of their stillbirth were gathered by Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Support (SANDS) Queensland and the NSW Stillbirth Foundation. Seventeen parents (14 mothers and three fathers) identified through the SANDS newsletter and by word of mouth attended three focus groups. All parents experienced late gestation stillbirths. The majority had consented to an autopsy but the cause of death remained unexplained.

Parents frequently commented on their inability to make an informed decision about autopsy due to overwhelming shock and grief and their dependence on others in the decision making process. One parent did not understand that the investigation was optional, and some participants stated feeling dependent on professionals for their decision. Some parents felt it was the responsibility of the care provider to make the decision on their behalf, comparing this to other emergency type decisions which are made in their best interests (eg emergency caesarean section) and felt let down by the care provider. Others felt vulnerable due to perceptions of lack of objectivity from their care provider, resulting from possible concerns about clinical error, and would have preferred to discuss the option of autopsy with a third party.

The need to involve others such as their babys grandparents and friends in interpreting information was important to parents. All agreed that written, as well as verbal information, about an autopsy was important, but eight parents had no recollection of receiving written information. Three parents did not recall any conversation with their care providers about the option of autopsy. This appeared to be influenced by presenting the decision as urgent and giving inadequate information. Negative feelings towards autopsy included: fear of mutilation; limiting the available time to spend with the baby; and concerns that an autopsy could indicate some blame to the mother for "doing something wrong". Some parents said that the autopsy, even when it did not reveal a cause for the death, helped them in "moving forward". All parents who did not have an autopsy expressed regret or some doubt about their decision. No parent who had an autopsy performed expressed these feelings.

Parents frequently raised concerns about clinical staff seeming inadequate in coping with the event of stillbirth. They commented that some staff seemed "scared" and did not appear to have an understanding of how parents respond to loss of a baby. Many parents suggested the need for special training of health care providers in communicating with parents after a stillbirth. Satisfaction with information and counselling about autopsy appeared to be related to trust in the heath care provider and displaying compassion and understanding of what the parents were experiencing.

Current research to inform best practise on the information needs and consent practices for autopsy around the time of stillbirth is limited. Lack of appropriate care may have long term consequences for bereaved parents. These pilot data, despite being limited by possible volunteer bias, support the need to improve care in relation to autopsy consent.

A large-scale study, which is currently being piloted, aims to identify factors that contribute to the low autopsy consent rate for stillbirths and will provide robust information to develop information and educational materials that address the needs of parents and clinicians.

Acknowledgment: We wish to acknowledge the parents who participated in the focus groups.


Support for parents

The death of an infant is among the most stressful of life events (153) and bereaved parents may experience acute emotional distress (153). Initial responses to an infants death include numbness, confusion, depersonalisation and disbelief and shock. This may be an adaptive mechanism to temporarily protect parents from the full impact of their babys death, however, mothers may continue to experience feelings of depersonalisation up to four years later (153). Bereaved fathers may deny the emotional impact of the experience (153), with up to 10% exhibiting "almost complete denial". Symptoms of depression may also continue for two years or more (153).

While grief after a stillbirth is a normal reaction, recent research has suggested that stillbirth may be associated with Post Traumatic Distress Disorder (PTSD) (154). Factors which have been reported to increase the risk of adverse psychological outcomes for parents after a perinatal death include: perceived inadequate social support, traumatic circumstances surrounding the death, difficulties in coping with a crisis in the past, problematic relationships in the nuclear family and the presence of other life crises. In addition, mothers report greater distress than do fathers.

A recent Cochrane review on support interventions for families after a perinatal death (155) concluded that there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to provide reliable information on which to base practice. While providing support for parents and families after a perinatal death is justified based on other types of research, there is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the benefit of the different types of interventions aiming to provide such support.

This overview was initially prepared by :
Vicki Flenady, Tomasina Stacey, Liz Davis, Ros Richardson, Yee Khong, Adrian Charles.
Last edited October 20th 2008.



  1. Stanton C, Lawn J, Rahman H, Wilczynska-Ketende K, Hill K. Stillbirth rates: delivering estimates in 190 countries. The Lancet. 2006 May, 2006;367:1489-94.

  2. Smith GCS, Fretts RC. Stillbirth. Lancet. 2007;370:1715-25.

  3. Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L & Sullivan EA 2013. Australia's mothers and babies 2011. Perinatal statistics series no. 28. Cat. no. PER 59. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit.

  4. NZHIS. Report on Maternity: Maternal and Newborn Information 2002. Manatu Hauora:: Ministry of Health, New Zealand Health Information Service (NZHIS); 2004.; 2004 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  5. AIHW NPSU 2003. Australian mothers and babies 2000. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit (Perinatal Statistics Series no. 12); 2003 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's mothers and babies 2000, Perinatal Statistics Series No 12. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare national perinatal statistics unit; 2003. Report No.: AIHW Cat No PER 21 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  7. Fretts RC, Boyd ME, Usher RH, Usher HA. The changing pattern of fetal death, 1961-1988. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jan;79(1):35-9.

  8. Goldenberg RL, Kirby R, Culhane JF. Stillbirth: a review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004 Aug;16(2):79-94.

  9. Cernach MC, Patricio FR, Galera MF, Moron AF, Brunoni D. Evaluation of a protocol for postmortem examination of stillbirths and neonatal deaths with congenital anomalies. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2004 Jul-Aug;7(4):335-41.

  10. Flenady V, Chan A, Haslam R, King JF, Tudehope DI, McCowan L. Cause specific perinatal mortality in Australia and New Zealand using a new clinical classification system (ANZACPM and ANZNDC).  Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 7th Annual Congress proceedings. Tasmania, Australia; 2003. p. A87.

  11. CESDI - Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. 8th Annual Report. London: Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium; 2001 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  12. Bell R, Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Wright C, Pearce MS, Parker L. Changing patterns of perinatal death, 1982-2000: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 Nov;89(6):F531-6.

  13. Froen JF, Gardosi JO, Thurmann A, Francis A, Stray-Pedersen B. Restricted fetal growth in sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Sep;83(9):801-7.

  14. 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 Oct 19.

  15. Flenady V, King J, Gardener G, Charles A, Tudehope D, Coory M, et al. Causes of fetal death in multiple pregnancies. Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress. 2006.

  16. SOS-Forum. SIDS and kids: focussing on stillbirth. Investigation and prevention of stillbirth. Setting the policy and research agenda. Sydney: University of Sydney; 2001 November 29-30, 2001 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  17. McDonald HM, Chambers HM. Intrauterine infection and spontaneous midgestation abortion: is the spectrum of microorganisms similar to that in preterm labor? Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2000;8(5-6):220-7.

  18. Alfirevic Z, Roberts D, Martlew V. How strong is the association between maternal thrombophilia and adverse pregnancy outcome? A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002 Feb 10;101(1):6-14.

  19. Saade GR, McLintock C. Inherited thrombophilia and stillbirth. Semin Perinatol. 2002 Feb;26(1):51-69.

  20. McLintock LA, Jordanides NE, Allan EK, Copland M, Stewart K, Parker A, et al. The use of a risk group stratification in the management of invasive fungal infection: a prospective validation. Br J Haematol. 2004 Feb;124(3):403-4.

  21. Rey E, Kahn SR, David M, Shrier I. Thrombophilic disorders and fetal loss: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2003 Mar 15;361(9361):901-8.

  22. Dudding TE, Attia J. The association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and maternal factor V Leiden genotype: a meta analysis; 2004 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  23. Perinatal Mortality Special Interest Group of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand. Clinical Practice Guideline for perinatal mortality audit. Brisbane, Australia: Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand; 2004 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  24. Fretts RC. Maternal age and fetal loss. Older women have increased risk of unexplained fetal deaths. Bmj. 2001 Feb 17;322(7283):430.

  25. Laws P, Sullivan EA. Australia's mothers and babies 2003. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit (Perinatal Statistics Series no. 16); 2005 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  26. King Edward Memorial Hospital. Lessons from the enquiry into obstetrics and gynaecological services at King Edward Memorial Hospital: Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Healthcare; 2002 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  27. Heazell AE, Frxen J. Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2008;28(2):147-54.

  28. Froen JF. A kick from within--fetal movement counting and the cancelled progress in antenatal care. J Perinat Med. 2004;32(1):13-24.

  29. Froen JF, Arnestad M, Frey K, Vege A, Saugstad OD, Stray-Pedersen B. Risk factors for sudden intrauterine unexplained death: epidemiologic characteristics of singleton cases in Oslo, Norway, 1986-1995. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Mar;184(4):694-702.

  30. Fossen D, Silberg IE. [Perinatal deaths in the county of Ostfold 1989-97]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999;119(9):1272-5.

  31. Maleckiene L, Nadisauskiene R, Bergstrom S. Socio-economic, demographic and obstetric risk factors for late fetal death of unknown etiology in Lithuania: a case--referent study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Apr;80(4):321-5.

  32. Sadovsky E, Ohel G, Havazeleth H, Steinwell A, Penchas S. The definition and the significance of decreased fetal movements. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1983;62(5):409-13.

  33. Olesen AG, Svare JA. Decreased fetal movements: background, assessment, and clinical management. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Sep;83(9):818-26.

  34. Heazell AE, Sumathi GM, Bhatti NR. What investigation is appropriate following maternal perception of reduced fetal movements? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Oct;25(7):648-50.

  35. Grant A, Elbourne D, Valentin L, Alexander S. Routine formal fetal movement counting and risk of antepartum late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet. 1989 Aug 12;2(8659):345-9.

  36. Gribbin C, James, D. Assessing fetal health. Current Obstetrics and Gynaeocology. 2005 01-105-2005;15:221-7.

  37. Moore TR, Piacquadio K. A prospective evaluation of fetal movement screening to reduce the incidence of antepartum fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;160(5 Pt 1):1075-80.

  38. Heazell AE, Green M, Wright C, Flenady V, Froen JF. Midwives' and obstetricians' knowledge and management of women presenting with decreased fetal movements. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(3):331-9.

  39. Heazell AE, Froen JF. Methods of fetal movement counting and the detection of fetal compromise. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Feb;28(2):147-54.

  40. Flenady V, MacPhail J, Gardener G, Chadha Y, Mahomed K, Heazell AE, et al. Detection and management of decreased fetal movements in Australia and New Zealand: A survey of obstetric practice. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;Submitted.

  41. Froen JF, Fretts RC, Gardosi J, Peterson K, Laurini R, Stray-Pedersen B. IN-SI-DE, -International Interactive Inquiry on Sudden Intrauterine Unexplained Death.; 2004 [updated 2004; cited 2004 24/02/04]; Available from:

  42. 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 12;331(7525):1113-7.

  43. Korteweg FJ, Gordijn SJ, Timmer A, Holm JP, Rvaisi JM, Erwich JJHM. A placental cause of intra-uterine fetal death depends on the perinatal mortality classification system used. Placenta 2007;29:71-80.

  44. Measey M, Charles A, d'Espaignet E, Harrison C, Douglass C. Aietiology of stillbirth: unexplored is not unexplained. Aust NZ J Public Health 2007;31:5.

  45. Australian Bureau of Statistics 3303.0 (Online). Causes of death, Australia, 2004. Available from:; cited 2006 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  46. Yudkin PL, Wood L, Redman CW. Risk of unexplained stillbirth at different gestational ages. Lancet. 1987;1(8543):1192-4.

  47. Flenady V, King J, Gardener G, Charles A, Tudehope D, Coory M, et al., editors. Unexplained fetal death contribution: singleton vs multiples. Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress; 2006; Perth. Perinatal mortality/Stillbirth investigation;.

  48. Huang DY, Usher RH, Kramer MS, Yang H, Morin L, Fretts RC. Determinants of unexplained antepartum fetal deaths. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;95(2):215-21.

  49. Froen JF. Sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Oslo: Unipub AS; 2002.

  50. Tolockiene E, Morsing E, Holst E, Herbst A, Ljungh A, Svenningsen N, et al. Intrauterine infection may be a major cause of stillbirth in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Jun;80(6):511-8.

  51. Gardosi J, Francis A, R. S. Association between fetal growth restriction and unexplained stillbirth at term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1999;180(1):S157.

  52. Flenady V, Hockey RL, Chang A, Waters K. Unexplained fetal death at a large maternity hospital: Identification of fetal risk factors: accepted for publication.  Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 8th Annual Congress. Sydney; 2004.

  53. Alessandri LM, Stanley FJ, Garner JB, Newnham J, Walters BN. A case-control study of unexplained antepartum stillbirths. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Sep;99(9):711-8.

  54. Alessandri LM, Stanley FJ, Newnham J, Walters BN. The epidemiological characteristics of unexplained antepartum stillbirths. Early Hum Dev. 1992 Sep;30(2):147-61.

  55. Smith LL, Crowther CA, Lipsett J, Khong T. Unexplained Stillbirth- Epidemiological, Social and Clinical Factors: A case controlled study.  Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 6th Annual Congress proceedings. Melbourne; 1999. p. A85.

  56. Warland J, McCutcheon H, Baghurst P. Maternal Blood Pressure in Pregnancy and Stillbirth: A Case-Control Study of Third-Trimester Stillbirth. Am J Perinatol. 2008 Apr 28.

  57. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003 Nov 29;362(9398):1779-84.

  58. Dodd JM, Robinson JS, Crowther CA, Chan A. Stillbirth and neonatal outcomes in South Australia, 1991-2000. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1731-6.

  59. Diagnosis and management of fetal death. ACOG Technical Bulletin Number 176-January 1993. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1993 Sep;42(3):291-9.

  60. Pauli RM, Reiser CA. Wisconsin Stillbirth Service Program: II. Analysis of diagnoses and diagnostic categories in the first 1,000 referrals. Am J Med Genet. 1994 Apr 1;50(2):135-53.

  61. Pauli RM, Reiser CA, Lebovitz RM, Kirkpatrick SJ. Wisconsin Stillbirth Service Program: I. Establishment and assessment of a community-based program for etiologic investigation of intrauterine deaths. Am J Med Genet. 1994 Apr 1;50(2):116-34.

  62. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Pathologists. Fetal and perinatal pathology. London, UK: RCOG Bookshop; 2001 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  63. Bove KE. Practice guidelines for autopsy pathology: the perinatal and pediatric autopsy. Autopsy Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997 Apr;121(4):368-76.

  64. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Genetic evaluation of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. ACOG Committee Opinion. 2001;257:1-3.

  65. Baird D, Wyper JFB. High stillbirth and neonatal mortalities. Lancet. 1941;2:657-9.

  66. 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.

  67. Pattinson RC, Makin JD, Shaw A, Delport SD. The value of incorporating avoidable factors into perinatal audits. S Afr Med J. 1995 Mar;85(3):145-7.

  68. Wigglesworth JS. Monitoring perinatal mortality. A pathophysiological approach. Lancet. 1980 Sep 27;2(8196):684-6.

  69. Chan A, King JF, Flenady V, Haslam RH, Tudehope DI. Classification of perinatal deaths: development of the Australian and New Zealand classifications. J Paediatr Child Health. 2004 Jul;40(7):340-7.

  70. Whitfield CR, Smith NC, Cockburn F, Gibson AA. Perinatally related wastage--a proposed classification of primary obstetric factors. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Jul;93(7):694-703.

  71. Saasted E, Vangen S, Frxen F. Suboptimal care in stillbirths - a retrospective study. Acta Obsetricia et Gynaecologica 2007;86(4):444-50.

  72. De Lange TE, Budde MP, Heard AR, Tucker G, Kennare R, Dekker G. Avoidable risk factors in perinatal deaths: A perinatal audit in South Australia. ANZJOG. 2008;48:50-7.

  73. Froen J, editor. Classification of stillbirth. International Stillbirth Alliance Conference; 2006 June; Yokohama, Japan. Perinatal mortality/Classification;Perinatal mortality/Stillbirth investigation;.

  74. Korteweg FJ, 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;113:393-401.

  75. Winbo IG, Serenius FH, Dahlquist GG, Kallen BA. NICE, a new cause of death classification for stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Neonatal and Intrauterine Death Classification according to Etiology. International Journal of Epidemiology 1998 Jun;27(3):499-504.

  76. de Galan-Roosen AE, Kuijpers JC, van der Straaten PJ, Merkus JM. Fundamental classification of perinatal death. Validation of a new classification system of perinatal death. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002 Jun 10;103(1):30-6.

  77. Myers SA, Fisher DE, Moawad A, Paton JB, Lee KS, Ferguson M. Assessment of potentially avoidable perinatal mortality in a regionalized program. J Reprod Med. 1990 Jan;35(1):29-34.

  78. Coria-Soto I, Zambrana-Castaneda M, Reyes-Zapata H, Salinas-Martinez AM. Comparison of two methods for the discrimination of avoidable perinatal deaths. J Perinat Med. 1997;25(2):205-12.

  79. Richardus JH, Graafmans WC, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Mackenbach JP. Differences in perinatal mortality and suboptimal care between 10 European regions: results of an international audit. Bjog. 2003 Feb;110(2):97-105.

  80. Alberman E, Botting B, Blatchley N, Twidell A. A new hierarchical classification of causes of infant deaths in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child. 1994 May;70(5):403-9.

  81. Alessandri LM, Chambers HM, Blair EM, Read AW. Perinatal and postneonatal mortality among Indigenous and non-Indigenous infants born in Western Australia, 1980-1998. Med J Aust. 2001 Aug 20;175(4):185-9.

  82. Hey EN, Lloyd DJ, Wigglesworth JS. Classifying perinatal death: fetal and neonatal factors. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Dec;93(12):1213-23.

  83. H|ltin-Varli I, Hofsjv A, Bottinga R, Bremme K, Holm M, Holste C, et al., editors. The Stockholm classification of fetal death. 2005 International Stillbirth Conference; 2007; Washington, DC, USA.

  84. Low JA, Boston RW, Crussi FG. Classification of perinatal mortality. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1971 Nov 20;105(10):1044-6 passim.

  85. Knutzen VK, Baillie P, Malan AF. Clinical classification of perinatal deaths. S Afr Med J. 1975 Aug 16;49(35):1434-6.

  86. Naeye RL. Causes of perinatal mortality in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project. Jama. 1977 Jul 18;238(3):228-9.

  87. Davies BR, Arroyo P. The importance of primary diagnosis in perinatal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May 1;152(1):17-23.

  88. Hovatta O, Lipasti A, Rapola J, Karjalainen O. Causes of stillbirth: a clinicopathological study of 243 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 Aug;90(8):691-6.

  89. Borch-Christensen H, Langhoff-Roos J, Larsen S, Lindberg B, Wennergren M. The Nordic/Baltic perinatal death classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1997;164:40-2.

  90. Fairweather DV, Russell JK, Anderson GS, Bird T, Millar DG, Pearcy PA. Perinatal mortality in Newcastle upon Tyne1960-62. Lancet 1966;1 (7429):140-2.

  91. Winbo IG, Serenius FH, Dahlquist GG, Kallen BA. A computer-based method for cause of death classification in stillbirths and neonatal deaths. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997 Dec;26(6):1298-306.

  92. Chang A, Keeping JD, Morrison J, Esler EJ. Perinatal death: audit and classification. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Nov;19(4):207-11.

  93. Stanley FJ, Hobbs MST. Perinatal outcome in Western Australia, 1968 to 1975. 3. Causes of stillbirths and neonatal deaths excluding congenital malformations. Med J Aust. 1981;1:483-6.

  94. Lammer EJ, Brown LE, Anderka MT, Guyer B. Classification and analysis of fetal deaths in Massachusetts. Jama. 1989 Mar 24-31;261(12):1757-62.

  95. Cole SK, Hey EN, Thomson AM. Classifying perinatal death: an obstetric approach. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Dec;93(12):1204-12.

  96. Dickson N, Bhula P, Wilson PD. Use of classification of primary obstetric factors in perinatally related mortality surveillance. N Z Med J. 1988 May 11;101(845):228-31.

  97. Keeling JW, MacGillivray I, Golding J, Wigglesworth J, Berry J, Dunn PM. Classification of perinatal death. Arch Dis Child. 1989 Oct;64(10 Spec No):1345-51.

  98. Alberman E, Blatchley N, Botting B, Schuman J, Dunn A. Medical causes on stillbirth certificates in England and Wales: distribution and results of hierarchical classifications tested by the Office for National Statistics. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Sep;104(9):1043-9.

  99. Flenady V, King JF, Hockey RL, Tudehope DI, editors. The rationale for clinical perinatal mortality classification - what more does it tell us than ICD codes? Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 3rd Annual Congress Proceedings; 1999; Melbourne, Australia. Perinatal mortality;Unexplained fetal death;UXFD;.

  100. Georgsdottir I, Geirsson RT, Johannsson JH, Biering G, Snaedal G. Classification of perinatal and neonatal deaths in Iceland. A survey from a defined population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989;68:101-8.

  101. McIlwaine GM, Dunn FH, Howat RC, Smalls M, Wyllie MM, MacNaughton MC. A routine system for monitoring perinatal deaths in Scotland. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:9-13.

  102. Morrison I, Olsen J. Weight-specific stillbirths and associated causes of death: an analysis of 765 stillbirths. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Aug 15;152(8):975-80.

  103. Baird D, Thomson A. The survey perinatal deaths re-classified by special clinico-pathological assessment. In: Butler NR, Alberman E, editors. Perinatal Problems The second report of the 1958 British Perinatal Mortality survey. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston; 1969. p. 200-10.

  104. Butler NR, Bonham DG. Perinatal Mortality. The First Report of the 1958 British Perinatal Mortality Survey. Edinburgh and London; 1963 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  105. Maternal and Perinatal Infant Mortality Committee. Maternal and Perinatal Infant Mortality in South Australia 2006. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Health; 2007 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  106. Kramer MS, Shiliang L, Zhongcheng L, Hongbo Y, Platt R, Joseph K. Analysis of Perinatal Mortality and Its Components: Time for a Change? . American Journal of Epidemiology 2002;156 (6):493-7.

  107. PSANZ PMN-SIG. Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand: Special Interest Group. Australia and New Zealand: PSANZ; 2004 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  108. King JF, Chan A, Haslam R, Tudehope DI, Flenady V, Hockey RL. Classifications for perinatal death clinician agreement.  Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 5th Annual Congress. Canberra, ACT, Australia; 2001. p. 97.

  109. Flenady V, Froen F, Pinar H, Torabi R, Saastad E, Guyon G, et al. An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth. BMC. 2008;Submitted.

  110. Corabian P, Scott A. Protocols for stillbirth investigations. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2005 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  111. Agapitos E, Papadopoulou C, Kavantzas N, Papoulias J, Antonaki V, Davaris P. The contribution of pathological examination of the placenta in the investigation of the causes of foetal mortality. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1996;44(1):5-11.

  112. Cartlidge PH, Dawson AT, Stewart JH, Vujanic GM. Value and quality of perinatal and infant postmortem examinations: cohort analysis of 400 consecutive deaths. BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):155-8.

  113. Killeen OG, Burke C, Devaney D, Clarke TA. The value of the perinatal and neonatal autopsy. Ir Med J. 2004 Sep;97(8):241-4.

  114. Kock KF, Vestergaard V, Hardt-Madsen M, Garne E. Declining autopsy rates in stillbirths and infant deaths: results from Funen County, Denmark, 1986-96. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003 Jun;13(6):403-7.

  115. Rasmussen S, Albrechtsen S, Irgens LM, Dalaker K, Maartmann-Moe H, Vlatkovic L, et al. Unexplained antepartum fetal death in Norway, 1985-97: diagnostic validation and some epidemiologic aspects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Feb;82(2):109-15.

  116. Rayburn W, Sander C, Barr M, Jr., Rygiel R. The stillborn fetus: placental histologic examination in determining a cause. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May;65(5):637-41.

  117. Saller DN, Jr., Lesser KB, Harrel U, Rogers BB, Oyer CE. The clinical utility of the perinatal autopsy. JAMA. 1995 Feb 22;273(8):663-5.

  118. Cartlidge PH. Effect of changing the stillbirth definition on evaluation of perinatal mortality rates. Lancet. 1995;346(August 19 - 8973):486-8.

  119. Incerpi MH, Banks EH, Goodwein SN, Samadi R, Goodwin TM. Significance of antinuclear antibody testing in unexplained second and third trimester fetal deaths. J Matern Fetal Med. 1998;7(2):61-4.

  120. Michalski ST, Porter J, Pauli RM. Costs and consequences of comprehensive stillbirth assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;186(5):1027-34.

  121. Ahlenius I, Floberg J, Thomassen P. Sixty-six cases of intrauterine fetal death. A prospective study with an extensive test protocol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995;74(2):109-17.

  122. Bohra U, Regan C, O'Connell MP, Geary MP, Kelehan P, Keane DP. The role of investigations for term stillbirths. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Feb;24(2):133-4.

  123. Lim TLW TK, Tee SC, Yeo GSH. Investigating stillbirths using a simplified obsettric events-based protocol. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;130:62-8.

  124. Incerpi MH, Miller DA, Samadi R, Settlage RH, Goodwin TM. Stillbirth evaluation: what tests are needed? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(6):1121-5.

  125. Laube DW, Schauberger CW. Fetomaternal bleeding as a cause for "unexplained" fetal death. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;60(5):649-51.

  126. Flenady V, Gilshenan K, King J, Charles A, Coory M, d'Espaignet ET. Investigation of Stillbirths. Conference Proceedings Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand. 2008;April.

  127. Khong TY. Ethical considerations of the perinatal necropsy. J Med Ethics. 1996 Apr;22(2):111-4.

  128. Gordijn SJ, Erwich JJ, Khong TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2002 Sep-Oct;5(5):480-8.

  129. Khong T, Arbuckle S. Perinatal pathology in Australia after Alder Hey. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002;38(4):409-11.

  130. Rankin J, Wright C, Lind T. Cross sectional survey of parents' experience and views of the postmortem examination. BMJ. 2002 Apr 6;324(7341):816-8.

  131. McHaffie HE, Fowlie PW, Hume R, Laing IA, Lloyd DJ, Lyon AJ. Consent to autopsy for neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001 Jul;85(1):F4-7.

  132. Department of Health. The 11th Report of the Perinatal and Infant Mortality Committee of Western Australia 2000-01. Perth; 2002 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  133. Duley LM. A validation of underlying cause of death, as recorded by clinicians on stillbirth and neonatal death certificates. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Dec;93(12):1233-5.

  134. Kirby RS. The coding of underlying cause of death from fetal death certificates: issues and policy considerations. Am J Public Health. 1993 Aug;83(8):1088-91.

  135. Sington JD, Cottrell BJ. Analysis of the sensitivity of death certificates in 440 hospital deaths: a comparison with necropsy findings. J Clin Pathol. 2002 Jul;55(7):499-502.

  136. Royal College of Pathologists. Guidelines on autopsy practice: Report of a working group of the Royal College of Pathologists.  London: Royal College of Pathologists; 2002 [updated 2002; cited 2004]; Available from:

  137. Hull MJ, Nazarian RM, Wheeler AE, Black-Schaffer WS, Mark EJ. Resident physician opinions on autopsy importance and procurement. Hum Pathol. 2007 Feb;38(2):342-50.

  138. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Autopsy Working Party. The decline of the hospital autopsy: a safety and quality issue for healthcare in Australia. Med J Aust. 2004 Mar 15;180(6):281-5.

  139. Rushton DI. West Midlands perinatal mortality survey, 1987. An audit of 300 perinatal autopsies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Jul;98(7):624-7.

  140. Royal College of Pathologists. Guidelines for post mortem reports. London: Royal College of Pathologists; 2004 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  141. Queensland Maternal and Perinatal Quality Council. Maternal and perinatal mortality audit: Guidelines for maternity hospitals. Queensland: Queensland Government, Queensland Health; 2003 Contract No.: Document Number|.

  142. Plea for Tassie's tragic babies. MERCURY. 2006 July 23.,22884,19878221-921,00.html.

  143. Khong TY, Turnbull D, Staples A. Provider attitudes about gaining consent for perinatal autopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;97(6):994-8.

  144. Khong TY, Mansor FA, Staples AJ. Are perinatal autopsy rates satisfactory? Med J Aust. 1995;162(9):469-70.

  145. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. The decline of the hospital autopsy: a safety and quality issue for healthcare in Australia. Med J Aust. 2004 Mar 15;180(6):281-5.

  146. AHMAC Subcommittee on Autopsy Practice. The national code of ethical autopsy practice. Adelaide: SA Department of Human Services; 2002 5 April Contract No.: Document Number|.

  147. Khong TY. Improving perinatal autopsy rates: who is counseling bereaved parents for autopsy consent? Birth. 1997 Mar;24(1):55-7.

  148. VanMarter LJ, Taylor F, Epstein MF. Parental and physician-related determinants of consent for neonatal autopsy. Am J Dis Child. 1987 Feb;141(2):149-53.

  149. Khong TY, Arbuckle SM. Perinatal pathology in Australia after Alder Hey. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002 Aug;38(4):409-11.

  150. Perlman B, Freedman J, Abramovitch R, Whyte H, Kirplalani H, Perlman M. Information needs of parents of sick neonates. Pediatrics. 1991;88:512-18.

  151. Gardner JM. Perinatal death: uncovering the needs of midwives and nurses and exploring helpful interventions in the United States, England, and Japan. J Transcult Nurs. 1999 Apr;10(2):120-30.

  152. Toedter L, Lasker J, Janssen H. International comparison of studies using the perinatal grief scale: a decade of research on pregnancy loss. Death Stud. 2001 April;25(3):205-28.

  153. Murray J, Callan VJ. Predicting adjustment to perinatal death. Br J Med Psychol. 1988 Sep;61 ( Pt 3):237-44.

  154. Turton P, Hughes P, Evans CD, Fainman D. The incidence and significance of post traumatic stress disorder in the pregnancy ager stillbirth. British Journal of Psychiatry Supplement 2001;178(556-560).

  155. Flenady V, Wilson T. Support for mothers, fathers and families after perinatal death. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(1):CD000452.