Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26835373›Full record

ReviewTranslational pediatrics2015

1(st) trimester miscarriage: four decades of study.

Kathy Hardy, Philip John Hardy

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The hidden causes of pregnancy loss: a closer look.Journal of translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Role of the vaginal microbiome in miscarriage: exploring the relationship.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  6. A novel indicator of selectionEvolution, medicine, and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. iScience · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pregnancy loss: more a matter of chromosomes or maternal discretion?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kathy HardyCyto Labs Pty Ltd, Bentley, Western Australia.
Philip John HardyCyto Labs Pty Ltd, Bentley, Western Australia.
Cyto Labs · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Miscarriage is a very common occurrence in humans. This paper sets out to present published data on research that has provided increased understanding of pregnancy failure. Clarification of definitions, exploring the range of failures from preclinical to later pregnancy losses, and the scientific tools employed to find information on the losses have been documented. What is now understood, which tools work best, and the associated limitations are all discussed. Early studies used cytogenetic methods and tissue culture to obtain results. Improvements in laboratory tools such as better tissue culture incubators, inverted microscopes, laminar flow hoods, improvements in culture media, all contributed to obtaining more results for patients. These studies demonstrated the significant contribution of unbalanced chromosomal karyotypes to pregnancy failure. Maternal age as a contributing factor in trisomy was clearly demonstrated. First trimester miscarriage exhibits very high cytogenetic abnormality; in contrast to very low rates in later losses. Combining data across all time periods of pregnancy will affect the significance of chromosomal error in the early pregnancy failures. Cytogenetic methods investigate whole genomes, and are considered to represent the standard against which new methods must be validated. New molecular genetic methods provide the opportunity to examine samples without the necessity of tissue culture. Techniques may be site-specific or whole genome. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH), comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH), array-based CGH, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR), have all been utilised. In comparison studies with classical/conventional cytogenetics, each newer method offers advantages and limitations. At the present time, a combined approach using conventional and molecular methods will elucidate the cause of miscarriage for almost all samples. In a clinical setting this would be optimum.

Indexed as

1st trimester miscarriageCytogeneticsmolecular cytogeneticsrecurrent miscarriage

Identifiers

PMID26835373
PMCPMC4729087
OpenAlexW2203512926

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.