ArticleHealth science reports2026
Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Risk Score for Stillbirth in Ethiopia: A Cohort Study Using PMA Data.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stillbirth remain a major public health concern, particularly in low-resource settings. Early identification of women at risk can significantly improve neonatal outcomes. This study aimed to Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Risk Score for Stillbirth in Ethiopia: A Cohort Study Using PMA Data. Methods: A predictive model was developed using Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) data from women. The data were exported to R version 4.4.3 for cleaning and analysis. Fifteen candidate predictors were initially considered and selected using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, Brier score, and the Spiegelhalter test. Clinical usefulness was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA). Internal validation was performed using bootstrap resampling. Finally, a simplified risk score and nomogram were developed to facilitate clinical application. Results: Predictors retained in the final model included prolonged labor, membrane rupture before 9 months, membrane rupture > 24 h during delivery, and partner encouragement for ANC. The model demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC = 0.905) and calibration (optimism-corrected slope = 1.005; Brier score = 0.0072; Spiegelhalter Conclusion: The four-factor prediction model, along with its simplified risk score and nomogram, accurately identifies pregnancies at high risk of stillbirth in Ethiopian women. By providing individualized risk estimates, the tool can support clinical decision-making and help prioritize interventions for those most at risk. External validation is needed before it can be widely applied in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.