Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37261584›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

Chromosomal abnormalities in recurrent pregnancy loss and its association with clinical characteristics.

Dan Zhu, Xing Wei, Xin-Yao Zhou, Lin-Bei Deng, Shi-Yi Xiong, Jian-Ping Chen, Guang-Quan Chen, Gang Zou, Lu-Ming Sun

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomics of pregnancy loss.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. PGT-A: Houston, we have a problem.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dan ZhuDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Xing WeiDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Xin-Yao ZhouDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Lin-Bei DengDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Shi-Yi XiongDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Jian-Ping ChenDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Guang-Quan ChenDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Gang ZouDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Lu-Ming SunDepartment of Fetal Medicine & Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China. luming_sun@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-0383
Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital · CN

Funding

Key Technologies Research and Development Program 2022YFC2704700,2022YFC2704703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the distribution of chromosomal abnormalities in a recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) cohort and explore the associations between chromosomal abnormalities and clinical characteristics.

methodOver a 5-year period, fresh products of conception (POC) from women with RPL were analyzed by single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array at our hospital. After obtaining the information on clinical characteristics, we investigated the associations between the causative chromosomal abnormalities and clinical characteristics by the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test and logistic regression.

resultsA total of 2383 cases were enrolled. Overall, 56.9% (1355/2383) were identified with causative chromosomal abnormalities, of which 92.1% (1248/1355) were numerical abnormalities, 7.5% (102/1355) were structural variants, and 0.4% (5/1355) were loss of heterozygosity (LOH). The risk of numerical abnormalities was increased in women with maternal age ≥ 35 years (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.41-2.07), gestational age at pregnancy loss ≤ 12 weeks (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.79-4.33), less number of previous pregnancy losses (twice: OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.84-2.94; 3 times: OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.23-2.05, respectively), and pregnancy with a female fetus (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.62). The OR of pregnancy loss with recurrent abnormal CMA was 4.00 (95% CI: 1.87-8.58, P < 0.001) and the adjusted OR was 5.05 (95% CI: 2.00-12.72, P = 0.001). However, the mode of conception was not associated with the incidence of numerical abnormality. No association was noted between structural variants and clinical characteristics.

conclusionChromosomal abnormality was the leading cause of RPL. Numerical chromosome abnormality was more likely to occur in cases with advanced maternal age, an earlier gestational age, fewer previous pregnancy losses, and pregnancy with a female fetus.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualChromosome DisordersAdultAneuploidyChromosome AberrationsFemaleHumansInfantMaternal AgePregnancyChromosomal abnormalityProducts of conceptionRPLSNP-array

Identifiers

PMID37261584
PMCPMC10352212
OpenAlexW4378953576

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.