Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31745982›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology.

David M Haas, Taylor J Hathaway, Patrick S Ramsey

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Australasian Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Clinical Management Guideline 2024 Part I.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Australasian recurrent pregnancy loss clinical management guideline 2024, part II.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2024
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. When autophagy meets placenta development and pregnancy complications.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  12. Endometrial Progesterone and Estrogen Receptors in Relation to Hormonal Levels in Women with Unexplained Recurrent Miscarriage.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David M HaasIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1001 West 10th Street, F-5, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 46202.
Taylor J HathawayIndiana University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1001 West 10th Street, F-5, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 46202.
Patrick S RamseyUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgesterone, a female sex hormone, is known to induce secretory changes in the lining of the uterus essential for successful implantation of a fertilized egg. It has been suggested that a causative factor in many cases of miscarriage may be inadequate secretion of progesterone. Therefore, clinicians use progestogens (drugs that interact with the progesterone receptors), beginning in the first trimester of pregnancy, in an attempt to prevent spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review, last published in 2013. Since publication of the 2018 update of this review, we have been advised that the Ismail 2017 study is currently the subject of an investigation by the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. We have now moved this study from 'included studies' to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification' until the outcome of the investigation is known.

objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of progestogens as a preventative therapy against recurrent miscarriage. SEARCH

methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 July 2017) and reference lists from relevant articles, attempting to contact trial authors where necessary, and contacted experts in the field for unpublished works. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing progestogens with placebo or no treatment given in an effort to prevent miscarriage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsTwelve trials (1,856 women) met the inclusion criteria. Eight of the included trials compared treatment with placebo and the remaining four trials compared progestogen administration with no treatment. The trials were a mix of multicenter and single-center trials, conducted in India, Jordan, UK and USA. In five trials women had had three or more consecutive miscarriages and in seven trials women had suffered two or more consecutive miscarriages. Routes, dosage and duration of progestogen treatment varied across the trials. The majority of trials were at low risk of bias for most domains. Ten trials (1684 women) contributed data to the analyses. The meta-analysis of all women, suggests that there may be a reduction in the number of miscarriages for women given progestogen supplementation compared to placebo/controls (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.00, 10 trials, 1684 women, moderate-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis comparing placebo-controlled versus non-placebo-controlled trials, trials of women with three or more prior miscarriages compared to women with two or more miscarriages and different routes of administration showed no clear differences between subgroups for miscarriage. None of the trials reported on any secondary maternal outcomes, including severity of morning sickness, thromboembolic events, depression, admission to a special care unit, or subsequent fertility. There was probably a slight benefit for women receiving progestogen seen in the outcome of live birth rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13, 6 trials, 1411 women, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect on the rate of preterm birth because the evidence is very low-quality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.41, 4 trials, 256 women, very low-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for women receiving progestogen for the other secondary outcomes including neonatal death, fetal genital abnormalities or stillbirth. There may be little or no difference in the rate of low birthweight and trials did not report on the secondary child outcomes of teratogenic effects or admission to a special care unit. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFor women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages, supplementation with progestogen therapy may reduce the rate of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstPregnancy Trimester, SecondPremature BirthProgesteroneProgestinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProgesteroneProgestins

Identifiers

PMID31745982
PMCPMC6953238

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.