Jump to content

Talk:Stillbirth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 6 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Death}}, {{WikiProject Women's Health}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22, Inshaqari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet birth?

[edit]

Why is the first piece of information in this article that stillbirth means "quiet birth"? If there's a more complicated etymology than meets the eye, I'd sincerely be interested, but the present bit of information does nothing for the article in my opinion. However, an fuller explanation of the origin would justify its presence. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively][reply]

I totally agree. I'll get rid of it. Jamie1743 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stillbirth and Sudden Antenatal Death Syndrome (SADS) merge

[edit]

G'day all. First things first, I would like to point out that I have archived some very long discussions which took place on this page prior to last year. If you would like to see those discussions, there is a link at top right of this page.

Now, I'd like some opinions. Sudden antenatal death syndrome has a notability flag on it, which I'd like to remove. However the article as it stands is really not strong enough to stand on its own, and has close links with the stillbirth article.

Therefore, I would like to propose that the content from Sudden antenatal death syndrome be merged into Stillbirth. I welcome your thoughts. Cheers, Basie (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sudden Antenatal Death Syndrome" gets zero hits on PubMed. Before merging it into Stillbirth, I would want to see a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I'm having a hard time finding references. Plenty of ghits, but many seem to stem from the MISS foundation site ([1]), [Still No More], or from wikimirrors. Then there's [2], linked from the other sites, which looks to be WP:OR.
I don't know, maybe a prod would be better unless someone could come up with more evidence. I can see the term existing in the Stillbirth article in the context of the above organisations' efforts to have legislation changed, for example to have birth certificates issued. Cheers, Basie (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, sounds like a marketing scheme, to make stillbirth seem like SIDS: scary but not that scary, preventable (if defined to include accidents and abuse, which a lot of people already believe are included), familiar. Some people think the MISS foundation is an anti-abortion front. Their big thing has been pushing for state laws that provide "birth" certificates for stillbirths. Some parents of stillborn babies really want this, but others are adamantly opposed because a side effect would make all stillbirths and therapeutic abortions a matter of public record. --Una Smith (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Ok, I'll leave the merge discussion open a bit longer, then think about prodding the article. Cheers, Basie (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further discussion, removing merge and prodding Sudden antenatal death syndrome. Basie (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb, but I redirected the SADS article based on PMID 11876571 which mentions the term. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have this wierd deja vu, like you already told me about that reference and I forgot it? Anyway, good solution! Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must be temporal lobe epilepsy on your part, I think... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain a lot :) Basie (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jason Collins

[edit]

I have heard that Dr. Collins is the expert in umbilical cord accidents. Where can I find info on his research? Maybe we should post some of his research in this article. --Why Are (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cannabis

[edit]

I find that making the effort to state "(Except Cannabis)" when referring to the fact that drugs may cause cannabis indicates that we KNOW that cannabis does not cause stillbirth. The article cited doesn't include a journal name, and I've been unable to locate it. As such, I'm removing the statement as I feel it may mislead readers into thinking that cannabis use is safe in pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure it's not. If good evidence is provided to the contrary I'd have no problem with my edit being reversed. Icomeau (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of moron would take cannabis whilst pregnant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.202.244 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional contributions

[edit]

"This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)"

I think most experts on the subject are excluded from contributing on the subject because it violates thier insurance agreements. Otherwise-this article is very sound despite "inexpert" sources. Recommend above quote be struck.GESICC (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)GESICC[reply]

I agree with your thoughts. Besides, it has been more than two years since that was notice was added. I will remove it. If someone has particular concerns, they can list them here. Charvex (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request for consideration

[edit]

Please consider adding www.finleysfootprints.com to the list of external links FinleysFootprints (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) finleysfootprints (declaring conflict of interest so have not posted myself)[reply]

Stillbirth rates

[edit]

The stillbirth rates quoted for the UK are not referenced and are, apparently, wrong. The latest results I can find suggest the rate is 3.5 per 1000 births (about 1 in 285) and this is widely reported in the UK media. Unless anyone objects I will update these figures and provide references. Tripper (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove picture of tangled cord? Very graphic.

[edit]
WP:NOTCENSORED in case anybody ever asks again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's gross. For people younger than the age of 14 (How old I am) coming on this page to read about this, it can definitely stay in your head for a while. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.22.90.198 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes reality is "disgusting". It's relevant to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 13:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-b-but think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want MY KIDS to be... GROSSED OUT! Cinimodder (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Study finds more stillbirths among South Asian women

[edit]

I'm a complete novice at wiki, but this article states South Asians have a higher prevalence of still births, could it be edited in by someone with more knowledge, because i'd just completely mess it up. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/study-finds-more-stillbirths-among-south-asian-women/story-fnet08ck-1226463820255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.198.39 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the image

[edit]

the image is too disturbing. i remember some image hide/show function on wikipedia but don't know how to use. can you hide please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.230.211 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTCENSORED. ZappaOMati 00:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stillborn redirect

[edit]

Please see Talk:Stillborn#Redirect I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lactation after stillbirth

[edit]

Don't most stillbirths induce lactation in the mother? If they don't dry up naturally, don't those mothers have to be treated with drugs or milk pumps or the milk may cake while still in the breast? The only article I have found that covers the subject even partway is Lactation suppression. I think this should be covered under the Treatment section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stillbirth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


More information needed on society and culture and mental health impacts

[edit]

I am glad to see there is a section on society and culture in this article but I would like to encourage those who know more about stillbirths than I do to please expand on that. I think we need more information on the historical development regarding how a society sees stillbirths (from something that happened "all the time" - "get over it quickly" to something very tragic - parents are allowed to grieve). Also it would be important to highlight the difference with developing countries where stillbirth rates are still much higher than in wealthy countries and where the support that grieving mothers get is much less. So it would be great to have more on history, psyochological impacts on mothers/fathers, how that has perhaps changed over time and the situation in developing countries. Thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a video on stillbirth that could either be included or that could help find suitable additional references (Lancet series):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3g0_RxvTx4 EvMsmile (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First pregnancy

[edit]

First pregnancy is a risk factor. Not sure why this was removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Do you have robust evidence for this? Many women will have a first pregnancy and the probability of having future pregnancies declines with increasing number of pregnancies. It is like the Down syndrome paradox. Most babies with Down syndrome are born to women below the age of 35 (simply because most pregnant women in a population are below 35) although the individual risk of bearing a Down syndrome baby is low before 35. One will not find maternal age < 35 as a risk factor for Down syndrome. In addition mentioning this marginal risk factor in the Wikipedia article is not in the interests of public health. One won't find first pregnancy in text books or journal articles as a notable risk factor for stillbirth. Ear-phone (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ref at the end of every sentence in the lead. The one supporting first pregnancy is the NIH which lists "Never having given birth before" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Thanks. I'm still sceptical about this. Are you aware of a primary source or text book that lists this? I think other established risk factors go ahead in order of priority/mentioning. Someone reading this might think in order to avoid stillbirth they need to avoid first pregnancy. Ear-phone (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. If you never have a first pregnancy though you will never have a stillbirth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True @Doc James:. But this could dissuade someone from falling pregnant in the first place unnecessarily fearing stillbirth. The latest Lancet paper on ending preventable stillbirths that lists risk factors doesn't mention first pregnancy as a risk factor. [1] Maybe first pregnancy can be de-emphasised or not put close to the front? Ear-phone (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops it does "Primiparity".[1] Sorry @Doc James:. You're correct. Ear-phone (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your conversation - interesting!! Learning new things every day through Wikipedia discussions. Thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true @Doc James: that being first born is a risk factor for stillbirth, but it might not be causal. Take autism as an example. It is generally more common among those born first, the main reason why this is so is because once parents have a baby with autism they are less likely to have a second baby. An example:


Take couple A – they have a first baby who does not have autism, then they have a second baby (who may or may not have autism).

Take couple B – they have a first baby who has autism and they decide not to have a second baby.

Because having a baby with autism (or stillbirth) can alter substantially the decision to have a second baby, this is why first borns (pregnancies) appear to be mainly affected by autism (stillbirth). In conclusion, I don’t think it’s apt to place first pregnancy ahead of established causal factors for stillbirth because lay readers can misinterpret it as being causal. And we know what people read can influence their behaviour. Ear-phone (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved to last in the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Doc James:. I think that section makes it difficult to understand what is causal and what is a risk factor. Smoking for example is said to be a risk factor. I would suggest in the lead that only causes are mentioned. Ear-phone (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree and feel risk factors are perfectly appropriate. Supported by this [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: One of the primary sources in the reference you give [2] states "Both maternal self-reported smoking history and maternal serum cotinine levels were associated in a dose-response relationship with stillbirth.". The issue I'm raising is the distinction between a risk factor and a causal factor. Ear-phone (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Carrying a cigarette lighter is a risk factor for developing lung cancer, but does not cause lung cancer. I feel it is important to clearly state what is causal and what is a risk factor where possible. Ear-phone (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Causes may include pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and birth complications, problems with the placenta or umbilical cord, birth defects, infections such as malaria, and poor health in the mother.[2][4] Risk factors include a mother's age over 35, smoking, drug use, use of assisted reproductive technology, and first pregnancy.[5]" It is perfectly clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: is smoking for instance best placed as a risk factor or a causal factor? Smoking and pregnancy. Ear-phone (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ref calls it a risk factor [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: the ref is not immutable. Smoking is virtually causal. Ear-phone (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Lawn, Joy E; Blencowe, Hannah; Waiswa, Peter; Amouzou, Agbessi; Mathers, Colin; Hogan, Dan; Flenady, Vicki; Frøen, J Frederik; Qureshi, Zeshan U; Calderwood, Claire; Shiekh, Suhail; Jassir, Fiorella Bianchi; You, Danzhen; McClure, Elizabeth M; Mathai, Matthews; Cousens, Simon (2016). "Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030". The Lancet. 387 (10018): 587–603. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5. ISSN 0140-6736.
  2. ^ Varner, Michael W.; Silver, Robert M.; Rowland Hogue, Carol J.; Willinger, Marian; Parker, Corette B.; Thorsten, Vanessa R.; Goldenberg, Robert L.; Saade, George R.; Dudley, Donald J.; Coustan, Donald; Stoll, Barbara; Bukowski, Radek; Koch, Matthew A.; Conway, Deborah; Pinar, Halit; Reddy, Uma M. (2014). "Association Between Stillbirth and Illicit Drug Use and Smoking During Pregnancy". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 123 (1): 113–125. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000052. ISSN 0029-7844.

Case control study

[edit]

Have removed this case control study[5]. We should be using reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source "case-control study" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware Doc James that it is a primary source, a case-control study (please see the example section). Identifying reliable sources (medicine) does not preclude citing primary sources. Have you read the papers? Or you are just automatically concluding case-control studies are not useful in all circumstances? I am afraid your judgement here doesn't seem correct. Ear-phone (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that you use review articles. This is well accepted and I see no reason why this case control study should be an exception. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James The paper is from a respected reputable journal BJOG. What I added is perfectly correct and does not overstate or understate anything. *sleeping in the supine position is a risk factor, however causality is not proven[1] There's no Wikipedia rule that primary sources cannot be used, your reason is apparently based only on primary vs. secondary source and does not consider the contents of the paper(s). Ear-phone (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying we should wait to see if others confirm this to be a concern or not. We are not here to scare people (WebMD already does that). You could ask for further opinions at WT:MED if you wish. Adding this will unnecessarily create guilt in women who may have had a miscarriage and sleep on their back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fourth study Doc James in case you were not aware. The information can also help to prevent stillbirth. Ear-phone (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When one does a trial there should be a single primary endpoint (if there are multiple primary endpoints the p value used should be adjusted)
If there are 4 studies than a review of them would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously User:Ear-phone why did you not just use this review? [6] I will add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James I was not aware of that review. Instead of automatically deleting my good faith edit why didn't you try and improve upon it, you left me to defend (with great stress) a perfectly correct addition. 10:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it wasn't "a perfectly correct addition". The agreed convention here is that biomedical claims require good quality secondary sources, and the source you used wasn't a secondary source. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS my contribution did not violate any Wikipedia rule. Good quality secondary sources are the convention yes however inclusion of the material eventually by Doc James albeit modified shows good quality primary sources are not automatically improper. Ear-phone (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ear-phone: there are no Wikipedia rules for you to violate. We just have policies and guidelines that the community has agreed on. And the guideline that is applicable in this case is "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." (from the opening paragraph of WP:MEDRS). You do see the word "secondary" in there, don't you? If you want to add biomedical claims based just on primary sources, you'd better have a good reason to explain why guidance that enjoys community consensus shouldn't apply to you. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Like you said it is guidance not a hard and fixed rule: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." From Identifying reliable sources (medicine). This to me means primary sources can at times be useful. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a lot of primary sources. Ear-phone (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: "there are no Wikipedia rules for you to violate.", you write. How about the three revert rule? The information has been added by Doc James I'm not sure why you keep harassing me about a good faith edit I was trying to make. Ear-phone (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ear-phone: "This to me means primary sources can at times be useful. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a lot of primary sources." Then you've not understood the guidance at WP:MEDRS. Of course a lot of Wikipedia content is based on primary sources, but none of that content consists of biomedical claims, which are only based on secondary sources.
The "3-revert rule" is a policy, not a rule. It is subject to occasional exceptions, and the section WP:NOT3RR lists them. Now, where did you find the section at WP:MEDRS saying "this doesn't apply to Ear-phone"?
Why do you keep harassing me about the good-faith advice I'm giving you? --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: The main parties involved have long closed the discussion, the content has been added. You keep giving me unsolicited advice which I do not find helpful. Please may you leave me alone. Wikipedia has primary biomedical sources, a lot of them. Ear-phone (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ear-phone: You're utterly wrong. Wikipedia has no biomedical content based solely on primary sources. If you won't listen to advice that will save you from making the same mistakes in the future, then you might want to consider a different hobby. This page is for discussion of how to improve our article on Stillbirth; so making sure that you don't make the mistake of adding even more content sourced just to primary sources is simply one way of doing that. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice @RexxS: is not helpful to me. A very simple search shows primary biomedical sources in the Ovarian cancer reference list e.g[2]. Please may you leave me alone and stop harassing me. You are causing me great stress. Ear-phone (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to replace those with recent high quality sources, not add more of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ear-phone, if my advice to use only secondary sources for biomedical claims isn't helpful to you, then you the problem lies with you, not me. Is that the best you can do in finding examples? That section of Ovarian cancer #Other animals reports the presence of ovarian tumours in female horses!!! Are doing this deliberately to wind me up? Stop harassing me. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: the study I cited initially is the, "the largest study performed to date that has collected detailed information about maternal sleep practices and their relationship with late stillbirth" - published November 2017 and within it all the previous three studies on the topic were reviewed/discussed.[1] The June 2017 review you cited does not include the most recent and robust data.[3] Since primary sources are not entirely prohibited on Wikipedia for biomedical purposes, I choose to cite the most recent and most robust data available from a respected reputable journal the BJOG. Since you prefer the June 2017 review and the information has been added I have no objection but RexxS continues to harass me. @RexxS: your advice is not useful to me because I know what the convention is, I also know that there is no ban on selected biomedical primary sources. Ear-phone (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the content disagreement has been amicably sorted out. Can the third opinion request be closed? --G (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gbohoadgwwian: Doc James has improved my contribution substantially however "may be a risk factor" is not accurate in my view. A mother sleeping on her back is a confirmed risk factor[1]. I suggest, "A mother sleeping on her back after 28 weeks of pregnancy is a risk factor for stillbirth". Original sentence by Doc James: "A mother sleeping on her back after 28 weeks of pregnancy may be a risk factor for stillbirth.[4]"
Ref says "There is emerging literature to suggest that maternal sleep position may be a risk for stillbirth" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it as well. Agree that "may be" is more accurate, as per Doc James's above quote from the reference.JenOttawa (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without an equally good source to support the "confirmed risk factor" conjecture, we should stick with what is sourceable: "may be a risk factor for stillbirth". --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading the article instead of dismissing it outright like you did at the outset. Gbohoadgwwian the third opinion request can be closed. Ear-phone (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention

[edit]

Along with the new material about arginine at the article I found: Related to arginine is N-carbamylglutamate NCG has support as improving pregnancy and neonate well being at a variety of veterinary references. "Maternal NCG supplementation significantly increased the number of total fetuses and live fetuses on day 28 of gestation by 1.32 and 1.29, respectively (P < 0.05), with a significant decrease in embryonic mortality (P < 0.05)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26290006 I do not know of any human studies yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are also studies supporting supplementation with the amino acid glutamine to increase the number of live births. "Dietary glutamine supplementation reduced abortion, decreased fetal deaths, and enhanced neonatal survival. [of infected mice]" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22086211

WP:MEDRS is the guideline we need to follow. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Heazell, AEP; Li, M; Budd, J; Thompson, JMD; Stacey, T; Cronin, RS; Martin, B; Roberts, D; Mitchell, EA; McCowan, LME (2017). "Association between maternal sleep practices and late stillbirth - findings from a stillbirth case-control study". BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14967. ISSN 1470-0328.
  2. ^ Moll, H. David; Slone, Donnie E.; Juzwiak, James S.; Garrett, Phillip D. (1987). "Diagonal Paramedian Approach for Removal of Ovarian Tumors in the Mare". Veterinary Surgery. 16 (6): 456–458. doi:10.1111/j.1532-950X.1987.tb00987.x. ISSN 0161-3499.
  3. ^ Warland, Jane; Mitchell, Edwin A.; O'Brien, Louise M. (2017). "Novel strategies to prevent stillbirth". Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 22 (3): 146–152. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.01.005. ISSN 1744-165X.
  4. ^ Warland, J; Mitchell, EA; O'Brien, LM (June 2017). "Novel strategies to prevent stillbirth". Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine. 22 (3): 146–152. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.01.005. PMID 28162972.

Foundations 2 2019, Group 2C Goals

[edit]

We are a group of four 2nd year pharmacy students who are going to be working on improving this article over the next 2 weeks. I will be:

- updating definitions of stillbirth
- updating epidemiological statistics
- updating the section for causes of stillbirth and differences among different populations
Crystalnguyentan (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review:

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, added prevalence section with clear structure, balanced content, neutral tone, and good sourcing (CDC and WHO). Also edited previous sections following guiding framework.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, updated epidemiological statistics to reflect current numbers, added prevalence section to show differences among different populations.

(1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, everything revised and edited have neutral POV; utilized objective data collected by CDC. Lauren.chen (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Yes, added information has good sourcing (World Health Organization and CDC) that is easily accessible.Clphan (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) No, information is paraphrased correctly. Each of the of the edits are paraphrased very well and meet the requirements set by Wikipedia. Additionally, every edit has a source other than the grammatical errors that are being corrected. Kelventran (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Inshaqari (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)== Foundations II Group 3A Goals ==[reply]

Goals 1) correct grammar and syntax to reduce reader confusion 2) include wiki hyperlinks for relevant topics

Foundations II Group 3A Goals

[edit]

Goals 1) check for grammatical and syntax errors to improve the readers understanding and minimize confusion.--Inshaqari (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentence..why is this necessary?

[edit]

"A stillbirth can result in the feeling of guilt or grief in the mother." Well, of course! Why is this sentence necessary at all? What does this add? Without that sentence, would anyone reading this think, "I bet mothers who have stillborn children are overjoyed because of it." No, nobody has ever thought this. What does it contribute? Cinimodder (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other animals

[edit]

This article covers only human stillbirths, is it not called "stillbirth" if it happens to an other animal? ★Trekker (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stillbirth&oldid=1194043973"