The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis
Abstract
The objectives of the current study were to calculate: (1) the expected rates of miscarriage by gestational week; (2) the cumulative risk of miscarriage; and (3) the remaining risk of miscarriage for gestational weeks five through 20, through a systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE for articles published in English through the end of 2009. References of articles were also searched. Four studies were identified to have the three necessary pieces of information for the proposed calculations: (1) gestational age at study entry, (2) pregnancy outcome; and (3) the gestational age at which the pregnancy outcome occurred. Data were extracted from each study and Life Table Analysis Methods were conducted. Weekly miscarriage rates varied in the early gestational weeks with the highest rate documented at >20 miscarriages per 1000 women‐weeks at each week of gestation prior to week 13. By week 14, the rate for all studies became relatively comparable and fell below 10 miscarriages per 1000 woman‐weeks at risk and fell even lower through week 20. The cumulative risk of miscarriage for weeks 5 through 20 of gestation ranged from 11 miscarriages per 100 women to 22 miscarriages per 100 women (11–22%). Based on data from comparable study populations, a range of background miscarriage rates by week of gestation for weeks 5 through 20, the cumulative risk of miscarriage, and the remaining risk of miscarriage are presented. Wider variation of miscarriage rates and risks occurred early in gestation (<14 weeks). Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Incidence of early loss of pregnancy
Wilcox, A. J., Weinberg, C. R., O'Connor, J. F., Baird, D. D., Schlatterer, J. P., Canfield, R. E., Armstrong, E. G., & Nisula, B. C. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198807283190401 · Cited by 2,354
Unintended Pregnancy in the United States
Henshaw, S. K. (1998) · Family Planning Perspectives · doi:10.2307/2991522 · Cited by 1,360
Wang, X., Chen, C., Wang, L., Chen, D., Guang, W., & French, J. (2003) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04694-0 · Cited by 590
Increased Maternal Age and the Risk of Fetal Death
Fretts, R. C., Schmittdiel, J., McLean, F. H., Usher, R. H., & Goldman, M. B. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199510123331501 · Cited by 428
Human embryonic and fetal death
Porter, I. H., & Hook, E. B. (1980) · Academic Press eBooks · Cited by 355
A note on the product-limit estimator under right censoring and left truncation
TSAI, W.-Y., JEWELL, N. P., & WANG, M.-C. (1987) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/74.4.883 · Cited by 353
Probabilities of Fetal Mortality
French, F. E., & Bierman, J. M. (1962) · Public Health Reports (1896-1970) · doi:10.2307/4591645 · Cited by 204
Li, D.-K., Odouli, R., Wi, S., Janevic, T., Golditch, I., Bracken, T. D., Senior, R., Rankin, R., & Iriye, R. (2002) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200201000-00004 · Cited by 203
Self-citationA prospective study of early pregnancy loss
Ellish, N. J., Saboda, K., O'Connor, J., Nasca, P. C., Stanek, E. J., & Boyle, C. (1996) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/11.2.406 · Cited by 173
Meister, R., & Schaefer, C. (2008) · Reproductive Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.06.006 · Cited by 102
Cited by
Abortion safety and use with normally prescribed mifepristone in Canada
Schummers, L., Darling, E. K., Dunn, S., McGrail, K., Gayowsky, A., Law, M. R., Laba, T.-L., Kaczorowski, J., & Norman, W. V. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa2109779 · Cited by 71
Leiomyomas in Pregnancy and Spontaneous Abortion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Sundermann, A. C., Velez Edwards, D. R., Bray, M. J., Jones, S. H., Latham, S. M., & Hartmann, K. E. (2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002313 · Cited by 58
Kirk, E., & Preston, C. (2019) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000736 · Cited by 55
Bothou, C., Anand, G., Li, D., Kienitz, T., Seejore, K., Simeoli, C., Ebbehoj, A., Ward, E. G., Paragliola, R. M., Ferrigno, R., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa266 · Cited by 44
Self-citationRiggs, D. W., Due, C., & Tape, N. (2021) · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · doi:10.1177/0030222818819339 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Ammon Avalos, L., Galindo, C., & Li, D.
- Venue
- Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-04-18
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 417-423
- ISSN
- 1542-0752 (ISSN-L)
- 1542-0760
- OpenAlex
- W2038453978
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 1.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdra.23014
- The paper
- Ammon Avalos, L., Galindo, C., & Li, D. (2012). A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
