The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Objective To estimate the procedure‐related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an updated meta‐analysis. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. Eligible for inclusion were large controlled studies reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Study authors were contacted when required to identify additional necessary data. Data for cases that had an invasive procedure and controls were inputted into contingency tables and the risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics based on a random‐effects model were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure‐related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the similarity in risk levels for chromosomal abnormality between the invasive‐testing and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Egger's bias was estimated to assess reporting bias in published studies. Results The electronic search yielded 2943 potential citations, from which 12 controlled studies for amniocentesis and seven for CVS were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 580 miscarriages occurred following 63 723 amniocentesis procedures, resulting in a weighted risk of pregnancy loss of 0.91% (95% CI, 0.73–1.09%). In the control group, there were 1726 miscarriages in 330 469 pregnancies with a loss rate of 0.58% (95% CI, 0.47–0.70%). The weighted procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.11–0.49%; I 2 = 70.1%). A total of 163 miscarriages occurred following 13 011 CVS procedures, resulting in a risk of pregnancy loss of 1.39% (95% CI, 0.76–2.02%). In the control group, there were 1946 miscarriages in 232 680 pregnancies with a loss rate of 1.23% (95% CI, 0.86–1.59%). The weighted procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following CVS was 0.20% (95% CI, −0.13 to 0.52%; I 2 = 52.7%). However, when studies including only women with similar risk profiles for chromosomal abnormality in the intervention and control groups were considered, the procedure‐related risk for amniocentesis was 0.12% (95% CI, −0.05 to 0.30%; I 2 = 44.1%) and for CVS it was −0.11% (95% CI, −0.29 to 0.08%; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions The procedure‐related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women. The risk appears to be negligible when these interventions were compared to control groups of the same risk profile. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 367
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2010, Green‐top guideline No.8
- Lau KT, 2005, Outcome of 1355 consecutive transabdominal chorionic villus samplings in 1351 patients, Chin Med J (Engl), 118, 1675
Metadata
- Authors
- Salomon, L. J., Sotiriadis, A., Wulff, C. B., Odibo, A., & Akolekar, R.
- Affiliations
- Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Canterbury Christ Church University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Akolekar, R.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-09-06
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 442-451
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2945069441
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 9.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
- Keywords
- amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, miscarriage, invasive prenatal diagnosis, procedural complications, chromosomal abnormalities, prenatal diagnosis, reporting bias, relative risk
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Amniocentesis, Chromosome Aberrations, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Prenatal Diagnosis, Chorionic Villi Sampling, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Risk Assessment, Embryo Loss
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