Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22161393›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage.

Hayfaa A Wahabi, Amel A Fayed, Samia A Esmaeil, Rasmieh A Al Zeidan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of dydrogesterone for the treatment of threatened miscarriage.Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Role of the vaginal microbiome in miscarriage: exploring the relationship.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Use of progestagens during early pregnancy.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hayfaa A WahabiChair of Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 11451.
Amel A Fayed
Samia A Esmaeil
Rasmieh A Al Zeidan
King Saud University · SAPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMiscarriage is a common complication encountered during pregnancy. The role of progesterone in preparing the uterus for the implantation of the embryo and its role in maintaining the pregnancy have been known for a long time. Inadequate secretion of progesterone in early pregnancy has been linked to the aetiology of miscarriage and progesterone supplementation has been used as a treatment for threatened miscarriage to prevent spontaneous pregnancy loss.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011) and bibliographies of all located articles for any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment given in an effort to treat threatened miscarriage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN

resultsWe included four studies (421 participants) in the meta-analysis. In three studies all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the fourth study, we included only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria in the meta-analysis. There was evidence of a reduction in the rate of spontaneous miscarriage with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.79). There was no increase in the rate of antepartum haemorrhage (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.94), or pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.88) for the mother. The rate of congenital abnormalities was no different between the newborns of the mothers who received progestogens and those who did not (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe data from this review suggest that the use of progestogens is effective in the treatment of threatened miscarriage with no evidence of increased rates of pregnancy-induced hypertension or antepartum haemorrhage as harmful effects to the mother, nor increased occurrence of congenital abnormalities on the newborn. However, the analysis was limited by the small number and the poor methodological quality of eligible studies (four studies) and the small number of the participants (421), which limit the power of the meta-analysis and hence of this conclusion.

Indexed as

Abortion, ThreatenedAdministration, IntravaginalFemaleHumansPregnancyProgestinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProgestins

Identifiers

PMID22161393
OpenAlexW2119795795

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.