Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14583982›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage.

R M Oates-Whitehead, D M Haas, J A K Carrier

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 224 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Outcome of Index Pregnancy in Women with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL).Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Progesterone: A Unique Hormone with Immunomodulatory Roles in Pregnancy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Evidence-based management of recurrent miscarriages.Journal of human reproductive sciences · 2014
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Threatened miscarriage: evaluation and management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
    Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R M Oates-WhiteheadResearch Division, Royal College of Paediatrics, 50 Hallam Street, London, UK, W1W 6DE.
D M Haas
J A K Carrier
Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Abortion, HabitualAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondProgestinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProgestins

Identifiers

PMID14583982
OpenAlexW1481646084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.