Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Acceptable Nomenclature for Pregnancy Loss Care: A Cross-Sectional Observational Survey.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a pilot study evaluating the acceptability of pregnancy loss nomenclature among people with recent lived experience and make recommendations for UK mass communication.
designElectronic internet-based questionnaire.
settingUK. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Service users who accessed UK healthcare for > 1 experience(s) of pregnancy loss between 2021 and 2024 (n = 391).
methodsDescriptive and inferential statistics.
main outcome measuresAcceptability ratings for pregnancy loss nomenclature used diagnostically in UK healthcare settings.
resultsMuch nomenclature currently in use in UK pregnancy loss care was rated 'unacceptable' by a majority of study participants. Spontaneous abortion, incompetent cervix, and cervical incompetence were among the terminology rated as 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of the respondents rating terms for the process of loss. In contrast, pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. As nomenclature for pregnancy loss outcomes, products, contents of the womb/uterus, and tissue were rated 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. Baby and 'their given name' were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents across all gestational age brackets. Some terminology elicited mixed acceptability ratings.
conclusionsSome pregnancy loss nomenclature attracted consensus acceptability or unacceptability ratings for respondents. The data inform evidence-based recommended alternatives, which should be adopted for mass communications relating to pregnancy loss.
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.