Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32409984›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020

Squaring the circle of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).

Paul N Scriven

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul N Scriven, London, UK. spongefacedloon@aol.comm.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0036-984X
Saint Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent publication of a study into the contribution of embryo chromosomal abnormalities in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) affords the opportunity to revisit the hypothesis that women with an aneuploid pregnancy loss have a better chance of a successful pregnancy next time than women with a chromosomally normal loss. A previous miscarriage with an abnormal karyotype (unrelated to a parental chromosome rearrangement) should not be viewed as a marker of an increased likelihood of aneuploidy in a subsequent pregnancy; it is (counterintuitively) likely to be indicative of a reduced risk of clinical miscarriage (with a higher proportion of aneuploid products) and an excellent chance for the live birth of the next pregnancy. Each couple should be treated on their own merits and with appropriate investigations performed where indicated; caution should be advised regarding offering preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsFertilization in VitroAbortion, HabitualAdultAneuploidyEmbryo TransferFemaleGenetic TestingHumansKaryotypeMaternal AgePregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisChromosome abnormalitiesMiscarriageRecurrent pregnancy loss

Identifiers

PMID32409984
PMCPMC7244703
OpenAlexW3025704491

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.