Effect of IVIG therapy on pregnant women with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy on unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion (URSA). Methods We retrieved all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the effect of IVIG therapy on URSA in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials before April 30, 2023, according to the PRISMA statement. The therapeutic effect of IVIG was measured by live birth rates. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers, based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. For the meta-analysis, we used odds ratios (random effects model and fixed effects model). The between-study heterogeneity was assessed by the Q test. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Results A total of 12 studies with 751 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There was no statistical significance [OR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.65, 1.75), P =0.80] between the IVIG group and the non-IVIG group, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) plus low-dose aspirin (LDA), intralipid, multivitamins, albumin, and normal saline. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to the different treatment regimens of the non-IVIG group. Compared to the placebo group, including multivitamins, albumin, and saline, the live birth rate of the IVIG group is superior, but there was no statistical significance [OR =1.43, 95%CI (0.99, 2.07), P =0.05]. Another subgroup analysis was performed according to URSA with positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Results showed the live birth rate of IVIG on URSA with positive for aPLs is inferior to that of LMWH plus LDA [OR = 0.25, 95%CI (0.11, 0.55), P =0.0007]. Conclusions IVIG didn’t increase the live birth rate of URSA compared to placebo. Conversely, compared with the IVIG, the LMWH plus LDA treatment schedule can increase the live birth rate of URSA with positive for aPLs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".