Cited by 522Reproductive System and PregnancyPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsReproductive Biology and Fertility

Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study

Stephenson, M.D.·2002·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reproductive loss carries immeasurable human costs as well as being costly to the health care system. The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency and distribution of cytogenetically abnormal miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage and to compare the results with the general population. METHODS: A total of 420 specimens, including 29 pre-clinical, 237 embryonic and 154 fetal, were successfully karyotyped from 285 couples with recurrent miscarriage. The results were stratified according to maternal age and compared with controls. RESULTS: In all, 225 specimens (54%) were euploid. A total of 195 specimens (46%) were cytogenetically abnormal, of which 131 (66.5%) were trisomic, 37 (19%) were polyploid, 18 (9%) were monosomy X, eight (4%) were unbalanced translocations and one was a combination of trisomy 21 and monosomy X. The frequency of euploid miscarriages was significantly higher in women <36 years of age with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls. The distribution of cytogenetic abnormalities in the recurrent miscarriage group was not significantly different from controls, when stratified by maternal age. CONCLUSIONS: Women <36 years of age with recurrent miscarriage have a higher frequency of euploid miscarriage. When stratified for maternal age, there is no difference in the distribution of cytogenetically abnormal miscarriages in couples with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/17.2.446

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephenson, M. D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Stephenson, M.D.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2002-02-01
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
446-451
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2110657082
Cited by
522
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 24
FWCI
4.70
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 › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
recurrent pregnancy loss, chromosomal abnormalities, karyology, trisomy, polyploidy, monosomy X, unbalanced translocation, maternal age
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Chromosome Aberrations, Female, Humans, Male, Maternal Age, Middle Aged, Ploidies, Translocation, Genetic, Incidence, Case-Control Studies, Age Distribution, Cytogenetic Analysis

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