Evidence mapPaperPMID 35672876Full record

ReviewObstetrical & gynecological survey2022

Recent Advances in Treatment of Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion.

Tianqing Deng, Xiaoyang Liao, Shaomi Zhu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Obstetrical & gynecological survey, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tianqing DengStudent.
Xiaoyang LiaoStudent.
Shaomi ZhuAssociate Professor, School of Medical and Life Sciences/Reproductive & Women-Children Hospital, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) is a distressing condition experienced by approximately 1% of women trying to conceive. However, the treatment of RSA is a challenge both for clinicians and patients. Objective: The aim of this review is to discuss the medical and surgical approach to the management of RSA, including those caused by anatomical, genetic, male, infectious, endocrine, and immune factors. Evidence Acquisition: A literature search using MeSH terms for each topic was undertaken using PubMed, supplemented by hand searching for additional references. Retrieved articles were reviewed, synthesized, and summarized. Results: Available treatments target hypothetical risk factors for RSA, although the effectiveness of many treatment options is controversial. Intervention should depend on the benefit-to-risk ratio of the proposed treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: The etiology of RSA is heterogeneous, and patients often lack specific clinical manifestations, which has hindered the progress in predicting and preventing RSA to some extent. Despite intensive workup, at least 50% of couples do not have a clear underlying pathology. In addition, an evidence-based treatment is not available in most patients even if abnormal test results are present. Many new treatment directions are also still actively exploring; empirical and combined multiple treatments are still the main methods.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualAbortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansMalePregnancyRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35672876
PMCPMC9169761

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.