ArticleBMJ open2019
Fecundability among Danish women with a history of miscarriage: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preconception Folate Status, Dietary Intake, Supplementation, and Time to Pregnancy Among Women in a Premarital Health Examination Cohort.Nutrients · 2026Article
- A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- The current situation and future directions for the study on time-to-pregnancy: a scoping review.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- The association between miscarriage and fecundability: the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the association between history of miscarriage and fecundability (the cycle-specific probability of conception).
designNationwide prospective cohort study using web-based questionnaires.
settingDenmark, 2007-2012.
participants977 women attempting to conceive, not using fertility treatment, and with a reproductive history of only miscarriage or only live birth. EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Information on previous pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, came from self-report or from relevant registries. Participants were followed for up to 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy, stopped trying to conceive or started fertility treatment, whichever came first. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate cumulative probabilities of conception for women whose reproductive history included only miscarriage or only live birth. Using proportional probabilities regression modelling, we computed fecundability ratios (FR) with 95% CI comparing women with a history of only miscarriage with women with a history of only live birth.
resultsAfter adjustment for potential confounders, the cumulative probabilities of conception within 12 cycles of follow-up were 85% (95% CI 81% to 89%) for women with a history of 1 miscarriage, 85% (95% CI 73% to 92%) for women with a history of ≥2 miscarriages and 88% (95% CI 87% to 89%) for women whose reproductive history included only live birth. Adjusted FRs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.07) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.17) for women with a history of 1 and ≥2 miscarriages, respectively.
conclusionsOur results indicate that women with a history of miscarriage may have slightly reduced fecundability compared with women with a history of only live birth. The reduction in fecundability was greater for women with repeated miscarriages, although the estimates were imprecise. Despite a potential delay in conception, women with previous miscarriage may have similar probability of pregnancy by 12 cycles of attempts to women with proven fertility.
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.