Cited by 328Reproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and Contraception

Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage

Clifford, K., Rai, R., Regan, L.·1997·Human Reproduction

Abstract

The future pregnancy outcome of 201 consecutive women, median age 34 years (range 22-43), with a history of unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage (median 3; range 3-13), was studied. All women and their partners had normal peripheral blood karyotypes; none had antiphospholipid antibodies and none hypersecreted luteinizing hormone (LH). No pharmacological treatment was prescribed and early pregnancy supportive care was encouraged. Women aged < or = 30 years had a subsequent miscarriage rate of 25% (14/57) which rose to 52% (13/25) in women aged > or = 40 years (P = 0.02). After three consecutive miscarriages, the risk of miscarriage of the next pregnancy was 29% (34/119) but increased to 53% (9/17) after six or more previous losses (P = 0.04). A past history of a livebirth did not influence the outcome of the next pregnancy. Supportive care in early pregnancy conferred a significant beneficial effect on pregnancy outcome. Of 160 women who attended the early pregnancy clinic, 42 (26%) miscarried in the next pregnancy compared with 21 out of 41 (51%) who did not attend the clinic (P = 0.002). After thorough investigation, women with unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage have an excellent pregnancy outcome without pharmacological intervention if offered supportive care alone in the setting of a dedicated miscarriage clinic.

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 · 10.1093/humrep/12.2.387

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Primary versus secondary recurrent miscarriage did not result in a significantly different future prognosis.

    “In two studies, primary versus secondary (those with a previous live birth) recurrent miscarriage did not result in a significantly different future prognosis.20,21”

    From Recurrent MiscarriageGreen‐top Guideline No. 17 (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

  • The prognosis for a successful future pregnancy with supportive care alone in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage is in the region of 75%.

    “These women and their partners can be reassured that the prognosis for a successful future pregnancy with supportive care alone is in the region of 75%.20,21”

    From Recurrent MiscarriageGreen‐top Guideline No. 17 (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Several observational studies have suggested that attendance at a dedicated early pregnancy clinic has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes.

    “However, data from several non-randomised studies have suggested that attendance at a dedicated early pregnancy clinic has a beneficial effect, 20,21,208,209”

    From Recurrent MiscarriageGreen‐top Guideline No. 17 (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

  • The literature search identified nine large cohort studies that reported on miscarriage risk in an aggregated total of 4,638,974 pregnancies.

    “Our literature search identified nine large cohort studies that reported on miscarriage risk in an aggregated total of 4,638,974 pregnancies (Table 2). 24-31”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]10. Stein, Z., Kline, J., Susser, E. et al. (1980) Maternal age and spontaneous abortion. In Porter, I.H. and Hook, E.B. (eds), Human Embryonic and Fetal Death. Academic Press, New York, pp. 107-127.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clifford, K., Rai, R., & Regan, L.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
1997-02-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
387-389
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W1963624889
Cited by
328
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 19
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
recurrent pregnancy loss, first-trimester miscarriage, unexplained miscarriage, subsequent pregnancy outcomes, maternal age, miscarriage risk, live birth
MeSH terms
Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Pregnancy Trimester, First

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