ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences
Prevalence of Cytogenetic Anomalies in Couples with Recurrent Miscarriages: A Case-control Study.
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytogenetic Analysis of 570 Couples with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Reporting 11 Years of Experience.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
- Cytogenetic analysis of 3488 patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: An experience of two decades from a tertiary care center in South India.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbout 15%-20% of couples get affected by recurrent miscarriages (RM) and chromosomal abnormality in one partner affects 3%-6% of RM couples.
aimsThe present study aimed to determine the prevalence of cytogenetic anomalies in couples with RM. SETTINGS AND
designA case-control study was undertaken, in which 243 couples who had experienced 2 or >2 miscarriages were investigated for chromosomal abnormalities and compared with 208 healthy, age-matched control couples who had at least one healthy live born and no history of miscarriages. MATERIAL AND
methodsPeripheral blood (PB) lymphocytes were cultured using PB-Max Karyotyping medium (GIBCO) for chromosomal analysis and 20 metaphases were analyzed for each individual. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Student's
resultsThe current study revealed 3.1% RM cases showing structural chromosomal aberrations, of which balanced translocations and Robertsonian translocations constituted 66.7% and 26.7% cases, respectively, while inversions constituted 6.7% abnormal RM cases. Polymorphic variations were observed in 1.9% RM patients and 1.2% controls as well. However, the number of abortions were significantly more (
conclusionsAlthough similar studies exist in literature, our study is the first of its kind from our region that has compared the chromosomal anomalies between the RM group and the control group. We observed 3.1% of balanced translocations and an increased number (though nonsignificant) of polymorphic variations and satellite associations in the RM group as compared to the control group.
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.