Non-visualized pregnancy losses are prognostically important for unexplained recurrent miscarriage
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
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
Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion
(2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.023 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
Conception to ongoing pregnancy: the 'black box' of early pregnancy loss
Macklon, N. (2002) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/8.4.333 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Estimates of human fertility and pregnancy loss
Zinaman, M. J., Clegg, E. D., Brown, C., O’Connor, J., & Selevan, S. G. (1996) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58144-8 · Cited by 606 · see citing works
Wang, X., Chen, C., Wang, L., Chen, D., Guang, W., & French, J. L. (2003) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04694-0 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Lashen, H. (2004) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deh277 · Cited by 577 · see citing works
Evidence-based guidelines for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage
Jauniaux, E. R. M. (2006) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/del150 · Cited by 521 · see citing works
Approaches for estimating prevalence ratios
Deddens, J. A., & Petersen, M. R. (2008) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.2007.034777 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
A longitudinal study of pregnancy outcome following idiopathic recurrent miscarriage
Brigham, S. A., Conlon, C., & Farquharson, R. G. (1999) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/14.11.2868 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Self-citationPregnancy of unknown location: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome
Barnhart, K. T., van Mello, N. M., Bourne, T., et al. (2010) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.006 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Prognosis for Live Birth in Women With Recurrent Miscarriage: What Is the Best Measure of Success?
Lund, M., Kamper-Jørgensen, M., Nielsen, H. S., Lidegaard, Ø., Andersen, A.-M. N., & Christiansen, O. B. (2012) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31823c0413 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Self-citationUnexplained recurrent miscarriage: how can we explain it?
Saravelos, S. H., & Li, T.-C. (2012) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/des102 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
The effect of body mass index on the outcome of pregnancy in women with recurrent miscarriage
Al-Ghamdi, A., Lo, W., Rai, R., Hameed, A., Brailsford, S. R., & Regan, L. (2012) · Journal of Family and Community Medicine · doi:10.4103/2230-8229.102316 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Pregnancies of unknown location
Kirk, E., Condous, G. S., & Bourne, T. (2009) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.008 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
The Use of Biochemical Assays in Epidemiologic Studies of Reproduction
Wilcox, A. J., Baird, D. D., Weinberg, C. R., Armstrong, E. G., Musey, P. I., WEHMANN, R. E., & Canfield, R. E. (1987) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.877529 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Quenby, S., Gallos, I. D., Dhillon-Smith, R. K., Podesek, M., Stephenson, M. D., Fisher, J., Brosens, J. J., Brewin, J., Ramhorst, R., Lucas, E. S., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00682-6 · Cited by 1,560 · see citing works
Self-citationInfertility and Perinatal Loss: When the Bough Breaks
Bhat, A., & Byatt, N. (2016) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0663-8 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Rasmark Roepke, E., Matthiesen, L., Rylance, R., & Christiansen, O. B. (2017) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13210 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationChance of live birth: a nationwide, registry-based cohort study
Kolte, A. M., Westergaard, D., Lidegaard, Ø., Brunak, S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2021) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa326 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationHereditary Thrombophilia and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
PRITCHARD, A. M., HENDRIX, P. W., & PAIDAS, M. J. (2016) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000226 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Fertility after recurrent miscarriages: results of an observational cohort study
Kling, C., Hedderich, J., & Kabelitz, D. (2018) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4532-4 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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