ReviewInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Progestogen supplementation to prevent miscarriage: Evidence and controversies.
Review in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progesterone plays a key role in the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy and its deficiency has been associated with early pregnancy loss. Progestogen supplementation has therefore been widely investigated as a preventive strategy against miscarriage, particularly in women with recurrent pregnancy loss or threatened miscarriage or after assisted reproductive technologies. However, the overall evidence remains inconclusive. Meta-analyses of randomized trials, including the large PROMISE and PRISM studies, have not demonstrated a significant overall benefit in live birth rates, although a possible advantage was observed in women with both early bleeding and prior miscarriages. The biological plausibility of supplementation lies in the luteal-placental shift, when the placenta assumes progesterone production after the first trimester. Yet, low progesterone levels in early pregnancy might often represent a marker of a non-viable gestation rather than the underlying cause of miscarriage. The optimal route and duration of treatment remain uncertain. Vaginal and subcutaneous progesterone offer comparable efficacy to intramuscular formulations, with better tolerability and compliance. Current evidence does not support universal progesterone supplementation in early pregnancy, but individualized treatment might be considered for women at increased risk, based on clinical history. Future research should focus on identifying reliable markers of luteal deficiency, refining patient selection and comparing different administration routes and serum thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.