SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expression Levels of miR-99a and miR-143 in Women Diagnosed with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of trophectoderm biopsy on serum β-hCG dynamics: PGT cycles vs. non-PGT cycles.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
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
purposeTo assess the risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies among women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
methodsRelevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. The pooled effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and data analysis was performed using the random effects model.
resultsA total of 26 studies involving 4,730,728 women were included in this meta-analysis. The results reveal a significant increase in the prevalence of placenta accreta cases after RPL compared to women without RPL (pooled OR 4.04; 95% CI 1.16-14.15; 2 studies; I
conclusionsWomen with a history of RPL exhibit a significantly elevated risk of placenta accreta in subsequent pregnancies, along with a moderate increase in the risk of various other adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. However, RPL does not signify an increased risk of aneuploidies or congenital anomalies in a consecutive pregnancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38951259What 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.