Cited by 58Uterine Myomas and TreatmentsReproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive System and Pregnancy

Leiomyomas in Pregnancy and Spontaneous Abortion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Sundermann, Alexandra C., Velez Edwards, Digna R., Bray, Michael J., Jones, Sarah H., Latham, Sanura M., Hartmann, Katherine E.·2017·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies reporting the risk of spontaneous abortion among pregnant women of typical reproductive potential with and without uterine leiomyomas. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications from January 1970 to December 2016. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We excluded studies that did not use imaging to uniformly document leiomyoma status of all participants, did not have a comparison group without leiomyomas, or primarily included women seeking care for recurrent miscarriage, infertility care, or assisted reproductive technologies. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two authors independently reviewed eligibility, extracted data, and assigned overall quality ratings based on predetermined criteria. Of 1,469 articles identified, nine were eligible. Five enrolled general obstetric populations and four included women undergoing amniocentesis. In five studies in general obstetric populations that included 21,829 pregnancies (1,394 women with leiomyomas and 20,435 without), only one adjusted for potential confounders. This meta-analysis revealed no increase in risk of spontaneous abortion among those with leiomyomas compared with those without (11.5% compared with 8.0%; risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.80–1.52). When bias from confounding was estimated for nonadjusted studies, the aggregate calculated risk ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.68–0.98). CONCLUSION: Leiomyoma presence was not associated with increased risk of spontaneous abortion in an analysis of more than 20,000 pregnant women. Failure of prior studies to adjust for confounders may have led to the common clinical belief that leiomyomas are a risk factor for spontaneous abortion.

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 · 10.1097/aog.0000000000002313

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • In a large meta-analysis of a general obstetric population, no increase in risk of miscarriage was found in women with myomas (11.5% versus 8.0%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.52).

    “In a large meta-analysis of a general obstetric population, including 1394 women with myomas and 20 435 without, no increase in risk of miscarriage was found (11.5% versus 8.0%; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.52).67”

    From Recurrent MiscarriageGreen‐top Guideline No. 17 (2023) · cites this paper as [67]

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: 3

  1. [11]Viswanathan M Ansari MT Berkman ND Chang S Hartling L McPheeters LM Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews AHRQ Publication No 12-EHC047-EF 2012 22479713
  2. [12]Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL Chapter 33: Meta-analysis Modern Epidemiology 3rd Philadelphia (PA) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2008 660 2
  3. [24]Laughlin SK Baird DD Savitz DA Herring AH Hartmann KE Prevalence of Uterine Leiomyomas in the First Trimester of Pregnancy An Ultrasound-Screening Study Obstet Gynecol 2009 113 630 5 19300327 PMC3384531

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sundermann, A. C., Velez Edwards, D. R., Bray, M. J., Jones, S. H., Latham, S. M., & Hartmann, K. E.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2017-11
Volume
130
Issue
5
Pages
1065-1072
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762801440
Cited by
58
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000445)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007347, T32GM080178)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
Keywords
uterine fibroids, miscarriage, pregnancy, miscarriage risk, confounding, risk factors, amniocentesis
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Female, Humans, Leiomyoma, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic, Risk Factors, Uterine Neoplasms

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