↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005943.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayfaa A Wahabi, Amel A Fayed, Samia A Esmaeil, Khawater Hassan Bahkali

Abstract

Miscarriage is a common complication encountered during pregnancy. It is defined as spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks' gestation. Progesterone's physiological role is to prepare the uterus for the implantation of the embryo, enhance uterine quiescence and suppress uterine contractions, hence, it may play a role in preventing rejection of the embryo. Inadequate secretion of progesterone in early pregnancy has been linked to the aetiology of miscarriage and progesterone supplementation has been used as a treatment for threatened miscarriage to prevent spontaneous pregnancy loss. This update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2011, investigates the evidence base for this practice. To determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials. Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials, that compared progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment for the treatment of threatened miscarriage in women carrying singleton pregnancy. At least two review authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data and graded the body of evidence. We included seven trials (involving 696 participants) in this update of the review. The included trials were conducted in different countries, covering the full spectrum of the World Bank's economic classification, which enhances the applicability of evidence drawn from this review. Two trials were conducted in Germany and Italy which are high-income countries, while four trials were conducted in upper-middle income countries; two in Iran, one in Malaysia and the fourth in Turkey, and the seventh trial was conducted in Jordan, which is a lower-middle income country. In six trials all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the seventh study, we included in the meta-analysis only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE tool and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Downgrading of evidence was based on the high risk of bias in six of the seven included trials and a small number of events and wide confidence intervals for some outcomes.Treatment of miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment probably reduces the risk of miscarriage; (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.87; 7 trials; 696 women; moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with oral progestogen compared to no treatment also probably reduces the miscarriage rate (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; 3 trials; 408 women; moderate-quality evidence). However treatment with vaginal progesterone compared to placebo, probably has little or no effect in reducing the miscarriage rate (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21; 4 trials; 288 women; moderate-quality evidence). The subgroup interaction test indicated no difference according to route of administration between the oral and vaginal subgroups of progesterone.Treatment of preterm birth with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment may have little or no effect in reducing the rate of preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44; 5 trials; 588 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if treatment of threatened miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment has any effect on the rate of congenital abnormalities because the quality of the evidence is very low (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82; 2 trials; 337 infants; very-low quality evidence). The results of this Cochrane Review suggest that progestogens are probably effective in the treatment of threatened miscarriage but may have little or no effect in the rate of preterm birth. The evidence on congenital abnormalities is uncertain, because the quality of the evidence for this outcome was based on only two small trials with very few events and was found to be of very low quality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 171 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 48 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 56 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2019.
All research outputs
#718,206
of 15,374,675 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,033
of 11,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,215
of 277,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,374,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.