Cited by 12Reproductive System and PregnancyAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Health and Technologies

Study of the birthweight of parents experiencing unexplained recurrent miscarriages

CHRISTIANSEN, O. B., MATHIESEN, O., LAURITSEN, J. G., GRUNNET, N.·1992·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine birthweight and preterm birth rates in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. DESIGN: A case control study. Birth data of couples with recurrent miscarriages were obtained from midwife records. Time and sex-matched births from the same records served as controls. SETTING: A Regional Hospital in Denmark. SUBJECTS: 79 singleborn women with recurrent miscarriages and 60 of their male partners comprised the main study groups. Two control groups comprised 474 female and 360 male singleborn infants who survived day 7 postpartum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean birthweight in the two main study groups and in subgroups with histories of 3, 4 and greater than or equal to 5 miscarriages. RESULTS: The mean birthweight of the women with recurrent miscarriages was 3265 g (SE 70) and in female controls 3414 g (SE 23) (P less than 0.025). The 17 women with five or more miscarriages had a mean birthweight of 2991 g (SD 140) (P less than 0.001 compared with controls). Of the women in the study group 10.8% were born preterm compared with 2.9% of the controls (P = 0.01). The mean birthweight of the male partners in the study group, 3470 g (SE 68), did not differ significantly from that of 3504 g (SE 31) in the male controls (P less than 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Women suffering unexplained recurrent miscarriages have on average had a significantly lower than normal birthweight themselves, whereas this was not observed in their male partners. This points towards the existence of a birthweight-reducing trait associated with recurrent miscarriages, the trait being manifest only in the woman.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13759.x

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CHRISTIANSEN, O. B., MATHIESEN, O., LAURITSEN, J. G., & GRUNNET, N.
Affiliations
Aalborg University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
CHRISTIANSEN, O. B.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
408-411
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2091139352
Cited by
12
References
10
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
recurrent pregnancy loss, unexplained miscarriage, birth weight, preterm birth
MeSH terms
Abortion, Habitual, Adult, Birth Weight, Fathers, Female, Humans, Male, Mothers, Pregnancy, Sex Factors, Case-Control 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