ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss: a 16-year cross-sectional study of 4030 cases from Turkey.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. 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.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChromosomal abnormalities are a significant cause of miscarriages. Carriers of balanced chromosome rearrangement are often at risk of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), as they are more likely to produce gametes with unbalanced chromosome rearrangements.
objectiveThis study evaluated the chromosomal abnormalities detected in couples with history of primary recurrent pregnancy loss.
designRetrospective, cross-sectional study.
settingSingle center, tertiary healthcare center in Turkey. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study reviewed conventional cytogenetic/molecular cytogenetic analysis data of 4030 patients (2015 couples) who visited the clinic from 2008-2024.
main outcome measuresChromosomal abnormalities in patients diagnosed with primary recurrent pregnancy loss and genetic testing results of spontaneously achieved pregnancies in 16 patients with a balanced chromosomal rearrangement. SAMPLE SIZE: 4030 individuals (2015 couples).
resultsMajority of couples had a history of two spontaneous miscarriages (59.4%), followed by couples with 3 miscarriages (28.1%), 4 miscarriages (7.5%), and 5 or more miscarriages (4.91%). Chromosomal abnormality was detected in 133 (3.3%) cases. Among the revealed abnormalities, 130 (97.7%) were structural chromosome anomalies, while only 3 (2.3%) numerical chromosome anomalies were observed, including sex chromosome aneuploidy in 2 cases and mosaic karyotype in one case. Among the detected 130 structural chromosome abnormalities, reciprocal translocations (86 cases, 66.2%) were most frequently observed, followed by Robertsonian translocations in 26 cases (20.0%), inversion in 11 cases (8.5%), marker chromosome in 5 cases (3.8%), and derivative chromosomes in 2 cases (1.5%). Products of conception (conceptus materials) were analyzed from 16 spontaneously conceived pregnancies in individuals identified as carriers of chromosomal rearrangements. Although reciprocal translocations involving acrocentric chromosomes are typically expected to result in 3:1 meiotic segregation, adjacent-1 segregation was observed in two female individuals carrying the translocation t(9;15)(p22;q23). This finding is likely due to the limited genetic content of the translocated segments. Additionally, a novel complex three-way translocation, t(5;7;13)(p12;p12;p11), was identified for the first time.
conclusionCytogenetic and molecular analyses are crucial components in the etiological investigations of couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design.
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.