The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of randomized control trials of progestational agents in pregnancy
Abstract
Summary: The continued use of progestational agents in attempts to achieve a normal outcome of pregnancy in women with a ‘high‐risk’ pregnancy (previous miscarriage, stillbirth or present preterm labour) prompted this meta‐analysis of randomized control trials of such therapy. Of 20 trials of a progestogen 15 had combinable data. Combined comparisons, using odds ratios with confidence intervals, were made of the rates of livebirths at term or preterm and the sum of term and preterm deliveries, miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths. All but one comparison failed to show a significant benefit. Only the preterm delivery versus the term delivery comparison approached statistical significance. There were average deficiencies of quality apparent in the studies, and a test for heterogeneity among the studies was positive, but these caveats do not diminish the conclusion that progestogens should not be used outside of randomized trials at present. If trials are done, they should include only women with demonstrated hormonal abnormalities who are carrying a live fetus as shown by ultrasonography.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Self-citationPlasma estrone, estradiol, estriol, progesterone, and 17-hydroxyprogesterone in human pregnancy
Tulchinsky, D., Hobel, C. J., Yeager, E., & Marshall, J. R. (1972) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(72)90185-8 · Cited by 564
Cited by
Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha–hydroxyprogesterone caproate
Meis, P. J., Klebanoff, M., Thom, E., Dombrowski, M. P., Sibai, B., Moawad, A. H., Spong, C. Y., Hauth, J. C., Miodovnik, M., Varner, M. W., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa035140 · Cited by 1,555
Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion
(2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.048 · Cited by 1,308
Rai, R., & Regan, L. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69204-0 · Cited by 1,227
Epidemiology and the medical causes of miscarriage
Regan, L., & Rai, R. (2000) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1053/beog.2000.0123 · Cited by 512
Recurrent miscarriage: aetiology, management and prognosis
Li, T. C. (2002) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/8.5.463 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- GOLDSTEIN, P., BERRIER, J., ROSEN, S., SACKS, H. S., & CHALMERS, T. C.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-274
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2020655032
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta‐analysis of randomized control trials of progestational agents in pregnancy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb02385.x
- The paper
- GOLDSTEIN, P., BERRIER, J., ROSEN, S., SACKS, H. S., & CHALMERS, T. C. (1989). A meta‐analysis of randomized control trials of progestational agents in pregnancy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb02385.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
