You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Changes in fetal autopsy patterns over a 10-year period
  1. Frédérique Jones1,
  2. Pascal Thibon1,
  3. Corinne Jeanne-Pasquier1,2,
  4. Maria Mandon2,3,
  5. Arnaud Molin2,4,5,
  6. Bernard Guillois1,5,6,
  7. Guillaume Benoist1,3,5,
  8. Michel Dreyfus1,3,5
  1. 1 CHU de Caen, Réseau de Périnatalité, Caen, France
  2. 2 Laboratoire de Foeto-pathologie, Service d'Anatomo-pathologie, CHU de Caen, Caen, France
  3. 3 Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, CHU de Caen, Caen, France
  4. 4 Service de Génétique, CHU de Caen, Caen, France
  5. 5 Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, Medical School, Caen, France
  6. 6 Service de Néonatologie, CHU de Caen, Caen, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pascal Thibon, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen, Caen 14033, Cedex 9, France; thibon-p{at}chu-caen.fr

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-310332

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Among diagnostic tests for stillbirth, fetal autopsy is an important audit tool to identify the cause of death. However, many countries have reported a decrease in autopsy rates,1 ,2 due either to more frequent refusal from parents or to fewer proposals of this examination.

    We measured the evolution of autopsy refusal rate over a 10-year period in a French region and identified the circumstances associated with refusal: all fetal deaths registered in the Lower Normandy perinatal death registry from 2005 to 2014 were included (except induced abortions). The decade was divided into three periods to reduce …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors FJ and PT planned the study, collected data, carried out the analyses and drafted the initial manuscript. CJ-P, MM and AM participated in the data collection and reviewed the manuscript. BG, GB, MD critically reviewed and revised the manuscript before approving the final manuscript as submitted.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.