ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022
Does a history of recurrent pregnancy loss affect subsequent obstetric outcomes and placental findings in in vitro fertilization?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. 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.
- The impact of unexplained spontaneous miscarriage history on cycle outcomes in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: an analysis of 6535 patients.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Alloimmune Causes of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Cellular Mechanisms and Overview of Therapeutic Approaches.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Impact of spontaneous abortion history and induced abortion history on perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Association between Abortion History and Perinatal and Neonatal Outcomes of Singleton Pregnancies after Assisted Reproductive Technology.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess perinatal outcomes and placental findings in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients with previous recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort of live singleton births following IVF at a single university-affiliated center between 2009 and 2017. Outcomes were compared between patients with previous RPL, defined as two miscarriages (RPL group), and patients without RPL (control group). Placental examination was performed for all deliveries irrelevant of complications, and findings categorized according to the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Consensus.
resultsOne hundred seventy-two deliveries of women with previous RPL (RPL group) were compared to 885 controls. Maternal age, 36.2 ± 4.2 vs. 35.4 ± 4.2 years, p = 0.02, and rate of uterine fibroids, 12.7% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.01, were higher in the RPL group. The rate of nulliparity was lower in the RPL group, 63.3% vs. 74.1%, p = 0.003. Unexplained infertility and diminished ovarian reserve were more common in the RPL group and male factor infertility in controls. There was a lower rate of fresh embryo transfer in the RPL group, 50.5% vs. 64.7%, p < 0.001, and reduced endometrial thickness. Similar obstetric outcomes were noted in the groups after adjustment for confounders. Placental examinations were notable for lower placental thickness, β - 0.17 cm, 95%CI - 0.30-(- 0.0), a lower rate of velamentous cord insertion, aOR 0.44, 95%CI 0.20-0.95, and a higher rate of villous infarction, aOR 2.82, 95%CI 1.28-6.20 in the RPL group.
conclusionIn IVF patients with a history of RPL, subsequent deliveries were associated with a limited number of placental lesions, yet with similar obstetric outcomes.
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.