Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25395740›Full record

ReviewJournal of human reproductive sciences2014

Evidence-based management of recurrent miscarriages.

Yadava B Jeve, William Davies

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of human reproductive sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prevalence of antiphospholipid syndrome among women with recurrent pregnancy loss: a cohort study.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Male Contributory Factors in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  19. An Exploratory Analysis of Firefighter Reproduction through Survey Data and Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yadava B JeveDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester LE1 5WW, Northampton, UK.
William DaviesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrent miscarriages are postimplantation failures in natural conception; they are also termed as habitual abortions or recurrent pregnancy losses. Recurrent pregnancy loss is disheartening to the couple and to the treating clinician. There has been a wide range of research from aetiology to management of recurrent pregnancy loss. It is one of the most debated topic among clinicians and academics. The ideal management is unanswered. This review is aimed to produce an evidence-based guidance on clinical management of recurrent miscarriage. The review is structured to be clinically relevant. We have searched electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) using different key words. We have combined the searches and arranged them with the hierarchy of evidences. We have critically appraised the evidence to produce a concise answer for clinical practice. We have graded the evidence from level I to V on which these recommendations are based.

Indexed as

antiphospholipids syndromeAspirinimmunotherapylow molecular weight heparinrecurrent miscarriagerecurrent pregnancy lossunexplained

Identifiers

PMID25395740
PMCPMC4229790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.