SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Recurrent pregnancy loss: systematic review and meta-analysis of overall prevalence and the distribution of major etiological categories.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between homocysteine level and unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Recurrent pregnancy loss: systematic review and meta-analysis of overall prevalence and the distribution of major etiological categories.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Couple-Based Framework for Integrating Paternal Assessment.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Immunoglobulins in recurrent pregnancy loss: Emerging biomarkers and therapeutic targets.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
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
Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a clinically and emotionally significant reproductive condition, yet its reported prevalence and etiological distribution vary widely across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize available evidence on the prevalence of RPL and the pooled proportions of its major etiological categories. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies identified through searches of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool prevalence estimates and etiological proportions using inverse-variance weighting and a restricted maximum likelihood estimator. For prevalence analyses, the denominator corresponded to the total number of individuals screened, as reported by each study. Freeman-Tukey transformations were applied where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using I Results: A total of 105 studies were included, comprising 47,907 women with RPL for etiological analyses. Only two studies provided population-based prevalence estimates of RPL, yielding an estimated prevalence of approximately 1% (95% CI, 1-1%), although the small number of studies limits interpretation. Among women with RPL, the pooled proportion of idiopathic or unexplained RPL was highest (37, 95% CI, 30-44%; I Conclusion: Reported prevalence and etiological proportions of RPL vary substantially across studies, and a large proportion of cases remain unexplained. The observed heterogeneity, partly associated with regional, demographic, and temporal factors, highlights the need for standardized definitions, diagnostic workups, and reporting practices to improve comparability across studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO Registry Number: CRD42024517675.
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.