Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 329

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

Ammon Avalos, Lyndsay, Galindo, Claudia, Li, De‐Kun·2012·Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology
DOI 10.1002/bdra.23014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdra.23014

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 329

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
DOI
10.1002/bdra.23014
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

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.