Cited by 70Reproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and Contraception

Non-visualized pregnancy losses are prognostically important for unexplained recurrent miscarriage

Open access
Kolte, A.M., van Oppenraaij, R.H., Quenby, S., Farquharson, R.G., Stephenson, M., Goddijn, M., Christiansen, O.B.·2014·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Are non-visualized pregnancy losses (biochemical pregnancy loss and failed pregnancy of unknown location combined) in the reproductive history of women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM) negatively associated with the chance of live birth in a subsequent pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Non-visualized pregnancy losses contribute negatively to the chance for live birth: each non-visualized pregnancy loss confers a relative risk (RR) for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), equivalent to the RR conferred by each additional clinical miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of clinical miscarriages prior to referral is an important determinant for live birth in women with RM, whereas the significance of non-visualized pregnancy losses is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study comprising 587 women with RM seen in a tertiary RM unit 2000-2010. Data on the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral were analysed for 499 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was conducted in the RM Unit at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. We included all women with unexplained RM, defined as ≥3 consecutive clinical miscarriages or non-visualized pregnancy losses following spontaneous conception or homologous insemination. The category 'non-visualized pregnancy losses' combines biochemical pregnancy loss (positive hCG, no ultrasound performed) and failed PUL (pregnancy of unknown location, positive hCG, but on ultrasound, no pregnancy location established). Demographics were collected, including BMI, age at first pregnancy after referral and outcome of pregnancies prior to referral. Using our own records and records from other Danish hospitals, we verified the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral. For each non-visualized pregnancy loss and miscarriage in the women's reproductive history, the RR for live birth in the first pregnancy after referral was determined by robust Poisson regression analysis, adjusting for risk factors for negative pregnancy outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Non-visualized pregnancy losses constituted 37% of reported pregnancies prior to referral among women with RM. Each additional non-visualized pregnancy loss conferred an RR for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), which was not statistically significantly different from the corresponding RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80; 0.94) conferred by each clinical miscarriage. Among women with ≥2 clinical miscarriages, a reduced RR for live birth was also shown: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74; 0.92) for each clinical miscarriage and 0.89 (95% CI 0.80; 0.98) for each non-visualized pregnancy loss, respectively. Surgically treated ectopic pregnancies (EPs) were significantly more common for women with primary RM and no confirmed clinical miscarriages, compared with women with primary RM and ≥1 clinical miscarriage (22 versus 6%, difference 16% (95% CI 9.1%; 28.7%); RR for ectopic pregnancy was 4.0 (95% CI 1.92; 8.20). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: RM was defined as ≥3 consecutive pregnancy losses before 12 weeks' gestation, and we included only women with unexplained RM after thorough evaluation. It is uncertain whether the findings apply to other definitions of RM and among women with known causes for their miscarriages. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of prior non-visualized pregnancy losses and their prognostic significance for live birth in a subsequent pregnancy in women with unexplained RM. We show that a prior non-visualized pregnancy loss has a negative prognostic impact on subsequent live birth and is thus clinically significant. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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/deu042

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Approximately 130 million births occur per year worldwide.

    “With approximate 130 million births per year worldwide 32 , a 15% miscarriage risk suggests approximately 23 million miscarriages per year, or 44 per minute.”

    From Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss (2021) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Reproductive history section reports births and pregnancy losses within the study cohort, not worldwide annual births. Searches for “130 million births per year worldwide” and “annual number of births globally worldwide” found no passage in our copy giving a global birth total. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Regan L, Rai R, Backos M. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage. RCOG Green Top Guideline 2011;17:1 -17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kolte, A. M., van Oppenraaij, R. H., Quenby, S., Farquharson, R. G., Stephenson, M., Goddijn, M., & Christiansen, O. B.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • University Hospital Coventry (GB)
  • Liverpool Women's Hospital (GB)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Aalborg University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Kolte, A.M.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2014-03-06
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
931-937
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2160348035
Cited by
70
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Aalborg Universitet
  • Aalborg Universitetshospital
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
unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion, biochemical pregnancy loss, pregnancy of unknown location, prognosis, reproductive history, homologous insemination, spontaneous conception, pregnancy outcome prediction, body mass index, Poisson regression, relative risk
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Denmark, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Cohort 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