Research methodology in recurrent pregnancy loss.
The aim of this article is to highlight pitfalls in research methodology that may explain why studies in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) often provide very divergent results. It is hoped that insight into this issue may help clinicians decide which published studies are the most valid. It may help researchers to eliminate methodological flaws in future studies, which may hopefully come to some kind of agreement about the usefulness of diagnostic tests and treatments in RPL.
Fertility Clinic 4071, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aalborg University Hospital, Reberbansgade, DK-9000, Aalborg, Denmark. Electronic address: olbc@rn.dk.
Ole B
OB
Christiansen
D000026:Abortion, Habitual / Q000209:etiology / Q000523:psychology; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D011379:Prognosis; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D058996:Quality Improvement; D018456:Reproductive Medicine / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D012107:Research Design; D012307:Risk Factors
Medical research; Methodological flaws; Recurrent miscarriage; Recurrent pregnancy loss; Research studies