Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438374›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025

Efficacy of therapeutic interventions for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Jorge Lima, João Guerreiro, Miguel Ângelo-Dias, Sofia Silvério Serra, Teresa Costa, Natália Marto, João Feldman de Pinho, João Costa, Rodrigo Ruano, Gonçalo Silva Duarte

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mesenchymal stem cells for recurrent miscarriage.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Jorge Lima *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, High-Risk Pregnancy Center, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
João Guerreiro *Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Miguel Ângelo-DiasComprehensive Health Research Centre-CHRC, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, NMS, FCM, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sofia Silvério SerraLibrary, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, NMS, FCM, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Teresa CostaLibrary, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, NMS, FCM, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Natália MartoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
João Feldman de PinhoDepartment of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the Reproductive Centers of America, New York, NY, United States.
João CostaLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rodrigo RuanoDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Miami and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL, United States.
Gonçalo Silva DuarteLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Approximately 50% of cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) remain unexplained, and there is a lack of consensus concerning the effective treatments for idiopathic RPL. We used network meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of several prophylactic therapeutic interventions used in women with idiopathic RPL. Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases from their inceptions to 20 July 2023. References from key articles were also manually searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of any prophylactic intervention that were conducted in adult women with RPL were included. Studies with known causes of RPL were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were live births and miscarriage rates. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse/adverse events and trial discontinuation. The network meta-analyses used a Bayesian hierarchical model with direct and indirect comparisons. Rank probabilities (assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]) and certainty of evidence (assessed by Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were also assessed. Results: Thirty-eight studies (6,379 participants) were evaluated. No statistically significant differences in live birth rates among the interventions were found. The three best-ranked interventions for this outcome were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (83%), leukocyte immune therapy (74%), and prednisolone (65%). Women who were treated with progesterone plus human chorionic gonadotrophin (instead of a placebo) presented an increase in miscarriage odds (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% credible intervals [CrIs] 1.04-14.38). The three best-ranked interventions for miscarriage rate were prednisone plus progesterone plus aspirin (SUCRA = 81%), hydroxychloroquine (SUCRA = 79%), and intralipid (SUCRA = 65%). Overall, under placebo, 59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-67; I Conclusion: Our results suggest that none of the analyzed interventions led to improvements in the live birth rate or a reduction in the miscarriage rate in women with idiopathic RPL. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023455668.

Indexed as

idiopathic recurrent pregnancy losslive birth ratemiscarriage ratenetwork meta-analysissystematic reviewtherapeutic interventions

Identifiers

PMID40438374
PMCPMC12116322

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.