Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39380582›Full record

ReviewRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2024

Biochemical markers for prediction of the first half pregnancy losses: a review.

Meruyet Kuspanova, Andrey Gaiday, Nurzhamal Dzhardemaliyeva, Maxat Tuganbayev, Maksym Gorobeiko, Andrii Dinets, Saule Bermagambetova, Zhanna Amirbekova, Gulshat Oraltayeva, Dinara Omertayeva and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

Meruyet KuspanovaDepartment of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University Aktobe Kazakhstan Department of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6586-721X
Andrey GaidayDepartment of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University Aktobe Kazakhstan Department of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7629-8737
Nurzhamal DzhardemaliyevaDepartment of obstetrics and gynecology Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University Almaty Kazakhstan Department of obstetrics and gynecology, Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-5466
Maxat TuganbayevDepartment of gynecology Atyrau Regional Perinatal Center Atyrau Kazakhstan Department of gynecology, Atyrau Regional Perinatal Center, Atyrau, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2422-9356
Maksym GorobeikoDepartment of Surgery Institute of Biology and Medicine Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Kyiv Ukraine Department of Surgery, Institute of Biology and Medicine, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1303-0076
Andrii DinetsDepartment of Surgery Institute of Biology and Medicine Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Kyiv Ukraine Department of Surgery, Institute of Biology and Medicine, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9680-7519
Saule BermagambetovaDepartment of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University Aktobe Kazakhstan Department of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5018-0498
Zhanna AmirbekovaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Medical University of Karaganda Kazakhstan Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Medical University of Karaganda, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4254-1094
Gulshat OraltayevaDepartment of medical expertise Regional Perinatal Center Semey Kazakhstan Department of medical expertise, Regional Perinatal Center, Semey, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8217-7680
Dinara OmertayevaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Medical University of Karaganda Kazakhstan Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Medical University of Karaganda, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9111-3275
Akylbek TussupkaliyevDepartment of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University Aktobe Kazakhstan Department of obstetrics and gynecology, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1228-7390

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: 26% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and up to 10% of clinically diagnosed pregnancies, and recurrent pregnancy loss is 5% among couples of childbearing ages. Although there are several known causes of pregnancy loss in the first half, including recurrent pregnancy loss, including parental chromosomal abnormalities, uterine malformations, endocrinological disorders, and immunological abnormalities, about half of the cases of pregnancy loss in its first half remain unexplained. Methods: The review includes observational controlled studies (case-control or cohort, longitudinal studies, reviews, meta-analyses), which include the study of biochemical factors for predicting pregnancy losses in the first half, in singlet pregnancy. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the research quality. Results: Finally, 27 studies were included in the review, which has 134904 examined patients. The results of the review include estimates of β-human chorionic gonadotropin, progesterone, pregnancy-associated protein - A, angiogenic vascular factors, estradiol, α-fetoprotein, homocysteine and CA-125 as a predictors or markers of the first half pregnancy losses. Conclusion: It may be concluded that to date, research data indicate the unavailability of any reliable biochemical marker for predicting pregnancy losses in its first half and require either a combination of them or comparison with clinical evidence. A fairly new model shall be considered for the assessment of α-fetoprotein in vaginal blood, which may have great prospects in predicting spontaneous miscarriages.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualBiomarkersFemaleHumansPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyBiomarkersBiochemical markerLaboratory markerMiscarriageMissed abortionPredictionPregnancySpontaneous abortion

Identifiers

PMID39380582
PMCPMC11460427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.