Evidence mapPaperPMID 40775429Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Health professionals require more defined protocols, better funding and patient resources to support couples with recurrent pregnancy loss.

Carolyn Ledowsky, Vanessa Scarf, Amie Steel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Carolyn LedowskySchool of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 235-253 Jones Street, Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Carolyn.j.ledowsky@student.uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1634-0328
Vanessa ScarfSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Amie SteelSchool of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 235-253 Jones Street, Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk of pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks gestation has been found to be 15.3% of all pregnancies, around 23 million losses each year. Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) - two or more pregnancy losses - are now presumed to affect 5% of couples. Clinical guidelines for health professionals for RPL are conflicting, lacking in good quality evidence and fail to involve those who experience RPL, especially the male partner. Despite folate being recommended for preconception support, no mention of folate exists in RPL guidelines. A national cross-sectional survey which assessed health professionals' recommendations, testing, prescribing and referral practices when providing care for couples in preconception and RPL was conducted. Clinical guidelines for RPL were found to be critically important for health professionals to provide care to couples experiencing RPL, however health professionals (n = 175) require stronger clinical guidance and more specialised training (47.3%), education (62.8%) and funding to better assist couples with RPL. Only 34% of health professionals reported having the necessary resources to support couples with RPL. Health professionals are aware of how important folate is to support preconception in females but are unaware of the critical role it plays in male fertility and as a result males are largely ignored in preconception care. Given the importance of folate supplementation in preconception and pregnancy, the guidelines for RPL fail to include dosing recommendations or variations in the type of folate that should be prescribed. Improved clinical guidelines, better resourcing and funding are required for health professionals to better support couples with RPL. Male partners need to be included in the preconception care and folate form and dosing must be considered.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualHealth PersonnelAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFolic AcidHumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicPreconception CarePregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesFolic AcidClinical guidelinesFolateMaleMiscarriageRecurrent pregnancy loss

Identifiers

PMID40775429
PMCPMC12332054

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.