ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2025
Toward clarity: why we need to standardize the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss'.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a complex reproductive condition that remains difficult to manage. Despite advances in identifying risk factors and treating cases with known causes, about half of the cases are still idiopathic, making effective treatment and prognosis challenging. In addition to clinical hurdles, a major issue in both the literature and medical community is the lack of standardization in terminology and precise definition for RPL. Here, we review the main discrepancies in current definitions and support adopting the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss' as the most appropriate and inclusive. We recommend recognizing RPL as a specific subtype of secondary infertility, characterized by two or more pregnancy losses. Standardizing this terminology is crucial for improving diagnosis, research comparison, and patient care in reproductive medicine.
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.