SynthesisReproductive health2025
Non-genetic risk factors of miscarriage: a comprehensive umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: Non-genetic risk factors of miscarriage: a comprehensive umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNumerous systematic reviews have examined the non-genetic factors associated with the risk of miscarriage. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct an umbrella review on non-genetic factors associated with the risk of miscarriage.
methodsScopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched until 2025 and the systematic review and meta-analysis articles that were conducted on observational studies were extracted. Quality assessment of the selected review articles was done by AMSTAR. For each selected meta-analysis, the summary effect size with the 95% confidence interval was estimated using the random-effects model and the predictive interval (PI) at 95% was estimated too. The between-study heterogeneity was assessed by the I
resultsFinally, 147 meta-analyses and 29 systematic review studies remained. None of the factors met all the necessary criteria and showed a definite association. However, 45 factors were classified as associations supported by suggestive evidence. Among these 45 factors, three factors-hypothyroidism, high serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and hairdressers-included the most complete information (they had more than 1,000 cases, significant based on the random-effects model, p < 0.001, respectively; (2/01(1/66-2/44), 2/88(1/76-4/68), 1/28(1/11-1/47)).
conclusionsOnly 45 non-genetic factors had statistically significant associations without bias and heterogeneity, but were classified in the associations supported by suggestive evidence group because the PI (95%) included the null value.
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.