SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003
Progestogen for preventing miscarriage.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 224 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Primary versus secondary recurrent pregnancy losses: Clinical findings and live birth rate after comprehensive work-up and personalized management.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Determinants of the economic burden of ART on the Italian NHS: insights from the Lombardy region.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Outcome of Index Pregnancy in Women with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL).Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022Article
- Progesterone: A Unique Hormone with Immunomodulatory Roles in Pregnancy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Steroid Receptor-Associated Immunophilins: A Gateway to Steroid Signalling.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2015Review
- Evidence-based management of recurrent miscarriages.Journal of human reproductive sciences · 2014Review
- Facilitative glucose transporter type 1 is differentially regulated by progesterone and estrogen in murine and human endometrial stromal cells.Endocrinology · 2009Article
- FKBP52 deficiency-conferred uterine progesterone resistance is genetic background and pregnancy stage specific.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2007Article
- Threatened miscarriage: evaluation and management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Review
- Role of nuclear progesterone receptor isoforms in uterine pathophysiology.Human reproduction updateReview
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilized egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progestogens. Therefore, progestational agents have been used, beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage.
objectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against miscarriage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (April 2003), CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1966 to April 2003), EMBASE (1980 to April 2003), CINAHL (1982 to April 2003), NHMRC Clinical Trials Register (April 2003) and Meta-Register (April 2003). We searched references from relevant articles, attempting to contact authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Thirty trials were identified in the initial search. At least, two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data for all outcomes were in dichotomous form and the Peto odds ratio was used in the meta-analysis for all comparisons. MAIN
resultsFourteen trials (1988 women) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of all women, regardless of gravidity and number of previous miscarriages, showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of miscarriage between progestogen and placebo or no treatment groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.34) and no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse effect in either mother or baby. In a subgroup analysis of three trials involving women who had recurrent miscarriages (three or more consecutive miscarriages), progestogen treatment showed a statistically significant decrease in miscarriage rate compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.91). No statistically significant differences were found between the route of administration of progestogen (oral, intramuscular, vaginal) versus placebo or no treatment. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is no evidence to support the routine use of progestogen to prevent miscarriage in early to mid pregnancy. However, further trials in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage may be warranted, given the trend for improved live birth rates in these women and the finding of no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups in rates of adverse effects suffered by either mother or baby in the available evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.