Cited by 43Reproductive System and PregnancyReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and Contraception

Time to conception and time to live birth in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage

Kaandorp, S. P., van Mens, T. E., Middeldorp, S., Hutten, B. A., Hof, M. H. P., van der Post, J. A. M., van der Veen, F., Goddijn, M.·2014·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the time to conception in a cohort of women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). SUMMARY ANSWER: Median time to conception in women diagnosed with unexplained RM was 21 weeks (interquartile range (IQR) 8-55 weeks), with a cumulative incidence of conception of 74% after 12 months of trying to conceive. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is no effective treatment in couples with unexplained RM. Adequate counselling about their prognosis, for example time to conception and time to a live birth, is therefore very important. So far, there are no studies that give insight on these issues. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A nested prospective cohort study was performed from February 2004 through July 2009 within a multicentre randomized placebo-controlled trial (ALIFE trial) on anticoagulant treatment in 364 women with unexplained RM. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 251 women who were not pregnant at the time of diagnosis of unexplained RM were included in this study. Of these, 13% became pregnant with ART, and all other women conceived naturally. The primary outcome was time to conception in weeks, calculated from the moment of diagnosis until conception measured by a urinary HCG. Secondary outcome was time to a live birth in the subsequent pregnancy. The relative prognostic significance of female age, the number of preceding miscarriages, interventions within the trial and the presence or absence of a preceding late miscarriage, a previous live birth and factor V Leiden mutation, was evaluated by Cox regression for time to conception and by competing risk modelling for time to live birth, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The cumulative incidence of conception was 56% after 6 months, 74% after 12 months and 86% after 24 months of which 65% resulted in a live birth. The median time to conception was 21 weeks (IQR 8-55 weeks). Of potential prognostic factors, the presence of the factor V Leiden mutation resulted in a significantly shorter median time to conception of 11 weeks for carriers versus 23 weeks for non-carriers (hazard ratio (HR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-3.65). The cumulative incidence of a live birth of the subsequent pregnancy was 0% after 6 months, 23% after 12 months and 50% after 24 months. The median time to a live birth of the subsequent pregnancy was 102 weeks (IQR 82-115 weeks). The number of previous miscarriages was the only prognostic factor (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94) significantly associated with time to a live birth of the subsequent pregnancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In our study only the subsequent pregnancy after diagnosing unexplained RM was included. A future collection of cumulative follow-up data of all the women included in this cohort may provide outcomes of all pregnancies following the diagnosis of unexplained RM. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Time to conception in women diagnosed with unexplained RM appears to be comparable with time to conception in healthy fertile women, as reported in the literature. The interesting finding that women with Factor V Leiden mutation have a significant shorter time to conception may suggest a favourable embryo implantation process. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and unravel the biology of early implantation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The RCT used for this nested cohort study was funded by a grant (945-27-003) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and a grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Study drugs (aspirin and placebo) were packaged and donated by Meda Pharma. This analysis was supported by a VIDI innovative research grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) 016.126.364. There are no potential conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This cohort study was nested in the randomized controlled trial; ALIFE study (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN 58496168).

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/deu052

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Based on limited cohort studies, the incidence of miscarriage appears to be increasing in the USA, China and Sweden, but decreasing in Finland.

    “Based on limited cohort studies, the incidence of miscarriage appears to be increasing in the USA, 30 China 34 and Sweden 35 , but decreasing in Finland. 28”

    From Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    Citation 28 is attached to the claim that miscarriage incidence is decreasing in Finland. The Study population and Discussion and Conclusion passages concern time to conception and live birth among women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, not national trends in miscarriage incidence. Searches for Finland, decreasing incidence, and country-specific trends found no passage addressing that claim. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaandorp, S. P., van Mens, T. E., Middeldorp, S., Hutten, B. A., Hof, M. H. P., van der Post, J. A. M., van der Veen, F., & Goddijn, M.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Kaandorp, S. P.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2014-03-28
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
1146-1152
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2069581164
Cited by
43
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • ZonMw (016.126.364)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.126.364)
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, time to conception, time to live birth, factor V Leiden, spontaneous conception, assisted reproduction, anticoagulation, prognostic factors, maternal age, late miscarriage, pregnancy counseling, thrombophilia
MeSH terms
Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Pregnancy, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Live Birth, Young Adult

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