Increased prevalence of insulin resistance in women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss
Open accessAbstract
Objective To determine whether insulin resistance is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).Design Single center, case-controlled, prospective study.Setting University-associated reproductive endocrinology clinical practice.Patient(s) Seventy-four nonpregnant, nondiabetic women with RPL. Controls were 74 fertile, nonpregnant, nondiabetic women without RPL who had at least one live infant, and were matched by age, race, and body mass index (BMI).Intervention(s) Both groups consented to obtaining fasting insulin and glucose levels.Main outcome measure(s) Insulin resistance was defined as a fasting insulin level >20 microU/mL or a fasting glucose to insulin ratio of <4.5.Result(s) Among the 74 women with RPL, 20 (27.0%) demonstrated insulin resistance, whereas only 7 of 74 (9.5%) of the matched controls were insulin resistant (odds ratio 3.55; 95% confidence interval 1.40-9.01). The RPL and control groups were similar with respect to age, ethnicity, and BMI. The RPL and control groups had similar fasting glucose levels and glucose-to-insulin ratios. However, fasting insulin levels > or =20 microU/mL were statistically different between the two groups (odds ratio 3.92).Conclusion(s) Women with RPL have a significantly increased prevalence of insulin resistance when compared with matched fertile controls.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The prevalence of insulin resistance and abnormal glucose tolerance test appears to be increased in women with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls.
“The prevalence of insulin resistance 91 and abnormal glucose tolerance test 92 appears to be increased in women with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls.”
From Recurrent MiscarriageGreen‐top Guideline No. 17 (2023) · cites this paper as [91]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 166
- Authors
- Craig, L. B., Ke, R. W., & Kutteh, W. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kutteh, William H
- Venue
- Fertility and Sterility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 487-490
- ISSN
- 0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016986826
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
- Keywords
- insulin resistance, recurrent pregnancy loss, fasting insulin, glucose-to-insulin ratio, hyperinsulinemia, women's reproductive health
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Blood Glucose, Fasting, Female, Humans, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Pregnancy, Reference Values, Prevalence, Case-Control Studies
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