ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Miscarriage Tissue Research: Still in Its Infancy.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Each year, around 23 million miscarriages occur worldwide, which have a substantial emotional impact on parents, and impose significant societal costs. While medical care accounts for most expenses, work productivity loss contributes significantly. Addressing underlying causes of miscarriage could improve parents' mental health and potentially their economic impact. In most countries, investigations into miscarriage causes are only recommended after recurrent cases, focusing mainly on maternal factors. Fetal and placental tissue are rarely examined, as current guidelines do not advise routine genetic analyses of pregnancy tissue, because the impact of further clinical decision making and individual prognosis is unclear. However, this leaves over 90% of all miscarriage cases unexplained and highlights the need for alternative methods. We therefore conducted a narrative review on genetic analysis, autopsy, and imaging of products of conception (POC). Karyotyping, QF-PCR, SNP array, and aCGH were reviewed in different research settings, with QF-PCR being the most cost-effective, while obtaining the highest technical success rate. Karyotyping, historically being considered the gold standard for POC examination, was the least promising. Post-mortem imaging techniques including post-mortem ultrasound (PMUS), ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging (UHF-MRI), and microfocus computed tomography (micro-CT) show promising diagnostic capabilities in miscarriages, with micro-CT achieving the highest cost-effective performance. In conclusion, current guidelines do not recommend diagnostic testing for most cases, leaving the majority unexplained. Although genetic and imaging techniques show promising diagnostic potential, they should not yet be implemented in routine clinical care and require thorough evaluation within research settings-assessing not only diagnostic and psychosocial outcomes but also economic implications.
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.