Toward clarity: why we need to standardize the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss'.

IF 1.9
Luiza Pretto, Eduarda Nabinger, Ivan Sereno Montenegro, Maria Teresa Vieira Sanseverino, Osvaldo Artigalás, Fernanda Sales Luiz Vianna, Eduardo Pandolfi Passos, Lucas Rosa Fraga
{"title":"Toward clarity: why we need to standardize the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss'.","authors":"Luiza Pretto, Eduarda Nabinger, Ivan Sereno Montenegro, Maria Teresa Vieira Sanseverino, Osvaldo Artigalás, Fernanda Sales Luiz Vianna, Eduardo Pandolfi Passos, Lucas Rosa Fraga","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20250158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a complex reproductive condition that remains difficult to manage. Despite advances in identifying risk factors and treating cases with known causes, about half of the cases are still idiopathic, making effective treatment and prognosis challenging. In addition to clinical hurdles, a major issue in both the literature and medical community is the lack of standardization in terminology and precise definition for RPL. Here, we review the main discrepancies in current definitions and support adopting the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss' as the most appropriate and inclusive. We recommend recognizing RPL as a specific subtype of secondary infertility, characterized by two or more pregnancy losses. Standardizing this terminology is crucial for improving diagnosis, research comparison, and patient care in reproductive medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":520656,"journal":{"name":"JBRA assisted reproduction","volume":"29 3","pages":"407-410"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12469224/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBRA assisted reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20250158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a complex reproductive condition that remains difficult to manage. Despite advances in identifying risk factors and treating cases with known causes, about half of the cases are still idiopathic, making effective treatment and prognosis challenging. In addition to clinical hurdles, a major issue in both the literature and medical community is the lack of standardization in terminology and precise definition for RPL. Here, we review the main discrepancies in current definitions and support adopting the term 'recurrent pregnancy loss' as the most appropriate and inclusive. We recommend recognizing RPL as a specific subtype of secondary infertility, characterized by two or more pregnancy losses. Standardizing this terminology is crucial for improving diagnosis, research comparison, and patient care in reproductive medicine.

为了明确:为什么我们需要规范“复发性流产”一词。
复发性妊娠丢失(RPL)是一个复杂的生殖条件,仍然难以管理。尽管在确定危险因素和治疗已知病因的病例方面取得了进展,但大约一半的病例仍然是特发性的,这使得有效的治疗和预后具有挑战性。除了临床障碍外,文献和医学界的一个主要问题是RPL的术语和精确定义缺乏标准化。在这里,我们回顾了目前定义中的主要差异,并支持采用“复发性妊娠丢失”一词作为最合适和最具包容性的定义。我们建议将RPL视为继发性不孕症的一种特定亚型,其特征是两次或两次以上的妊娠丢失。规范这一术语对于提高生殖医学的诊断、研究比较和患者护理至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信