ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2005
Intravenous immunoglobulin and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and Recurrent Implantation Failure: Unveiling a Rare Phenomenon During Pregnancy.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Pravastatin to prevent recurrent fetal death in massive perivillous fibrin deposition of the placenta (MPFD).The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2016Article
- Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infraction after High Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin Infusion.Case reports in medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been used to prevent pregnancy loss, in unexplained recurrent miscarriage, and in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). When used on an unselected population with recurrent miscarriage, IVIg has not been shown to improve the live birth rate. However, when patients are selected for poor prognosis or autoimmune phenomena, IVIg has been shown to be effective. This article discusses the possible immune mechanisms by which IVIg may act and the effect of confounding factors such as embryonic chromosomal aberrations or anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies in APS. Hence, there may be an impression of futility, when IVIg may be highly effective in saving those pregnancies that can be saved. Additionally, in an unselected population with recurrent miscarriage, there is a relatively good prognosis for a subsequent live birth (60%). Therefore, the spontaneous prognosis must be taken into account, which has not been the case in previous trials.
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.