<p>The author made a good attempt to address an important public health issue, albeit with technical inconsistencies.</p><p>The concept of stillbirth is when a baby is born without any sign of life, in other words, the baby died before being born. So, all stillbirths occur intrauterine. In the results section, the author stated'' <strong>Of the 167 stillbirths, 96 (57%) were male fetuses, 142 (85%) were intrauterine, and 100 (60%) were macerated''- &nbsp;</strong>classifying stillbirth here as intrauterine is technically wrong. All stillbirths occur intrauterine, although the diagnosis can be made antepartum (when the dead fetus is still intrauterine with clinical examination or with some radiological investigations) or postpartum (when the baby is born dead using the Apgar Score).&nbsp;</p><p>While the author tried to elucidate the causes of stillbirth here- <strong>Causes of stillbirth were preeclampsia 27 (16.2%), placental abruption 22 (13.2%), ruptured uterus 19 (11.4%), antepartum hemorrhage 12 (7.2%), and placenta Previa 6 (3.6%)- </strong>the author accounted for causes of about just half of the cases (i.e about 51%), I wonder what accounted for the remaining 49% of stillbirths. The causes would have been better structured if the author had stuck to the traditionally recognized structure of outlining the causes of stillbirths i.e. &nbsp;maternal, fetal, placenta, and external</p><p><strong>''Stillbirth rates in AWC are lower than the national rate''- </strong>is this difference significant? &nbsp;or did it just occur by chance? Can you say this emphatically? Maybe, a report of a difference that is significant statistically would have been better to be able to make this statement.</p><p><strong>''Most stillbirths were caused by preventable or treatable conditions''. </strong>There is no record of any condition classified as preventable or treatable in the methodology, and there is no documentation of preventable/treatable conditions in the result. This is a spurious conclusion</p><p><strong>&nbsp;''We recommend that the good practices of this facility be replicated in other maternal health facilities in the country''.&nbsp;</strong> There is no documentation of good practices in the result section to justify this recommendation. This is also spurious.</p><p>This abstract would have been excellent for an oral presentation if not for the technical inconsistencies, however, if the corrections can be made, it is okay for a poster presentation</p>