Skip to main content
Download PDF

Can single progesterone concentration predict miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 133 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

About 25% of pregnant women experience bleeding in the early stage, and half of them eventually progress to pregnancy loss. Progesterone serves as a useful biomarker to predict miscarriage in threatened miscarriage, yet its performance is still debated.

Aim

To evaluate the performance of single serum progesterone predicting miscarriage in early pregnant patients with threatened miscarriage.

Method

The online database was searched to yield the literature using the terms of ‘Abortion’, ‘Miscarriage’, and ‘serum Progesterone’, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, and China national knowledge infrastructure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, likelihood ratio (LLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed. Publication bias was assessed by the deeks funnel plot asymmetry test. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the progesterone level (< 12 ng/mL), recruited location and region, progesterone measurement method, exogenous progesterone supplement and follow up.

Results

In total, 12 studies were eligible to be included in this study, with sample sizes ranging from 76 to 1087. The included patients’ gestational age was between 4 and 12 weeks. No significant publication bias was detected from all included studies. The threshold of progesterone reported ranged from 8 to 30 ng/ml. The synthesized area under the ROC curve (0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), positive LLR (6.2, 4.0 to 9.7) and DOR (18, 12 to 27) of single progesterone measurement distinguishing miscarriage were relatively good in early pregnant patients with threatened miscarriage. When the threshold of < 12 ng/mL was adapted, the progesterone provided a higher area under the ROC curve (0.90 vs. 0.78), positive LLR (8.3 vs. 3.8) and DOR (22 vs.12) than its counterpart (12 to 30 ng/mL).

Conclusion

Single progesterone measurement can act as a biomarker of miscarriage in early pregnant patients with threatened miscarriage, and it has a better performance when the concentration is <12 ng/mL.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42021255382).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

About 25% of pregnant women experience bleeding in the early stage, and half of them eventually progress to pregnancy loss. Currently, neither effective treatment nor prevention strategy is available to manage this condition [1,2,3]. Despite some medicines are frequently prescribed in clinical practice including progesterone [4], the latter seems only to benefit early pregnant women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding [5].

The vaginal bleeding during the early pregnancy stage is proven to be strongly associated with miscarriage, which is indeed attributed to luteal insufficiency, leading to low progesterone concentration [1,2,3]. Progesterone, a critical hormone during pregnancy, reflects the luteal function until 7 weeks of gestation, and thus serves as a biomarker to predict the pregnancy outcome in threatened miscarriage [6, 7]. However, the concentration of progesterone varies largely among individuals and across gestational age [8]. Previously, two meta-analyses indicated that both less than 10 ng/mL and 6.3 ng/mL could predict a non-viable pregnancy in early pregnant women including threatened miscarriage [9, 10]. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether a single progesterone measurement can predict miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage, because most of studies recruited mixed patients including biochemical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and threatened miscarriage.

Therefore, we conduct a diagnostic meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of single progesterone measurement predicting miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage.

Methods

Protocol and registration

This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021255382) and prepared according to systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [11].

Literature search

We conduct a comprehensive literature search from Jan 1, 2000 to March 31, 2023, without limitation in language. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), with the terms of ‘Miscarriage’, Abortion’ and ‘serum Progesterone’. The search strategy used on PubMed-Medline was listed in (Supplement Table 1) in detail. Other databases were tailored when it was necessary, according to the strategy used on PubMed-Medline.

Table 1 Characteristics of individual studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Study selection

Inclusion criteria were patients had an ultrasound-confirmed intrauterine pregnancy with gestational age < 12weeks, presented with vaginal bleeding with or without abdominal pain, measured progesterone concentration, reported threshold of progesterone predicting pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, designed as observational studies or intervention studies (randomized controlled trials), with sample size over 50. Exclusion criteria were women who planned to terminate the pregnancy or have an inevitable miscarriage, got pregnancy via assisted reproductive technologies, took exogenous progesterone prior study, and without threatened miscarriage.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two authors (YG and TJ) independently extracted the data from included studies, including the study country, sample size, study design, gestation age, progesterone assessment method, diagnostic threshold of progesterone, exogenous progesterone used during study, true and false positive, true negative and false negative, follow up.

The quality of included studies was evaluated according to the QUADAS-2 standard for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy [12], including the risk of prejudice and applicability concerns. The risk of bias is consisted of four aspects, namely, patient selection, index testing, reference standards and flow and timing. Applicability assessment included patient selection, index testing, and reference standards.

Outcomes assessment

The main outcomes included cumulative area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LLR), , and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

Statistical analysis

STATA17 software (Stata Corp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA) was employed to conduct the statistical analysis when there were 4 or above available dataset, using the ‘midas’ command [13, 14], otherwise, the analysis was conducted by the Metadisc1.4 software. The area under the ROC curve, LLR and DOR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Publication bias was assessed by the deeks funnel plot asymmetry test. Model fits were assessed by quantile plot of residual based goodness-of fit and chi-squared probability plot of squared mahalanobis distances. Subgroup analysis was conducted, stratifying by the threshold of progesterone, recruited location and region, progesterone measurement method, exogenous progesterone supplement and follow up.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

Overall, 12 studies were included in this study (Fig. 1), and 15 datasets were available to pool the results. The included studies were conducted in India, Singapore, China, and Australia, with a sample size ranging from 76 to 1087. The included patients’ gestational age was between 4 and 12 weeks. The threshold of progesterone reported ranged from 8 to 30ng/ml. Other characteristics of included studies were shown in (Table 1) in detail.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Full size image

Quality assessment

The methodological quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool (Table 2). One study did not describe exclusion criteria [15]. Two studies reported as retrospective studies without any information in detail [16, 17] and three studies did not report the study design [15, 18, 19]. One study was judged with a high risk of bias and four were unclear. The selection of diagnostic thresholds was not stated prior the study in 5 studies [16, 18,19,20,21] and thus were classified as unclear risk for publication bias. , The outcome assessment was conducted by the ultrasound or follow-up of < 20 weeks of gestation in 9 studies, but live birth in 3 studies [15, 16, 22].  Due to migration, not all patients were included to perform the analysis in 3 studies [22,23,24]. No significant publication bias was detected (Supplement Fig. 1).

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies
Full size table

Diagnostic performance

The sensitivity, specificity, positive LLR and negative LLR of progesterone in each study were summarized (Fig. 2). The pooled sensitivity (0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77) and specificity (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) of progesterone predicting miscarriage were relative good, providing positive LLR (6.2, 95% CI 4.0 to 9.7) and negative LLR (0.35, 0.27 to 0.43). The synthesized area under the ROC curve (0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) had similar performance (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Diagnostic test accuracy for single study

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Summary area under the ROC Curve

Full size image

Subgroup analysis

The threshold of < 12 ng/mL was reported in 8 studies [17, 19, 21,22,23,24,25,26], the rest ranging from 12 to 30 ng/mL [15, 16, 18, 20, 22]. When the threshold of < 12 ng/mL was adapted, progesterone yielded a higher ROC (0.90 vs. 0.78), positive LLR (8.3 vs. 3.8) and DOR (22 vs.12) than its counterpart (12 to 30 ng/mL), respectively (Table 3). Other factors including recruited location and region, progesterone measurement method, exogenous progesterone supplement and follow up, did little impacts on the diagnostic performance.

Table 3 Summarized results of the meta-analysis
Full size table

Discussion

Main results

This study indicated that single progesterone measurement can act as a biomarker predicting miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage, and the performance was better when the concentration was < 12 ng/mL.

Strengths and limitations

In this updated meta-analysis, we included 12 studies which focused on investigating the progesterone predicting miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage, providing a more robust evaluation compared with the previous one [27]. In addition, as the incidence of threatened miscarriage varies widely across races, regions and countries, the use of sensitivity and specificity to assess progesterone predicting miscarriage in this condition is inappropriate and inaccuracy [28]. Therefore, together with sensitivity and specificity, the LLR was calculated [29], because the latter had been proposed to be an prefer outcome in diagnostic study [30, 31].

Also, there are several limitations in this study. First, the threshold interval was relatively wide, lowering the accuracy of estimation. Second, high heterogeneity was observed among studies, leading to increased risk of diagnostic bias and unstable evaluation. Last but not least, a meta-regression analysis can not be performed, due to the absent available data and limited studies.

What ideas does our research provide for clinical applications

Previously, it had been reported that about 50% of women facing threatened miscarriage were affected depressive and anxiety symptomatology [32]. When it comes to the case, they might benefit from an effective treatment or prevention strategy, due to the fear of pregnancy loss, especially for those who had an experience of miscarriage. Unfortunately, there is still absent an effective treatment or prevention strategy. Despite many experimental treatments are frequently prescribed in the real world including exogenous progesterone supplement, the latter had been demonstrated did not improve the clinical outcomes in this subpopulation. As the progesterone concentration < 10 ng/mL can predict a non-viable pregnancy [10], the issue is how is the prognostic value of progesterone concentration in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage, especially for those who initially seek medical care and conduct the progesterone measurement. Our findings suggested that serum progesterone < 12 ng/mL at a single measurement can also effectively predict miscarriage in early pregnant patients with threatened miscarriage. Therefore, progesterone, a useful prognostic biomarker, would provide help to make a decision in practice and reduce the anxiety secondary to the threatened miscarriage.

What progress does our research provide for future research?

During the first trimester, serum progesterone levels fluctuate over a 24-hour period, the concentration at a single measurement would be influenced by a short-term pattern of pulses, distribution of the hormone and the diet [33]. Moreover, 7 to 8 weeks is considered to be the stage of the luteal-placental shift, progesterone levels may be plateaus or even decrease trend [7], attracting the largest attentions during this period with a highest frequency of vaginal bleeding [34]. Whereas few studies explored the performance of progesterone during the period before 7 weeks of gestation. Thus, studies are warranted to be conducted to further validate the prognostic value of progesterone prior 7 weeks of gestation and clarify the optimal time point of single measurement. In addition, the diagnostic performance of progesterone seemed to be little impacted by the exogenous progesterone supplement even thought at a single measurement without specific time point. This deserves to be validated by further studies, given the fact that exogenous progesterone supplement is still widely prescribed in clinical practice [35].

Conclusion

Single progesterone can act as a prognostic biomarker in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage, it has a better performance when its concentration is < 12 ng/mL.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Everett C. Incidence and outcome of bleeding before the 20th week of pregnancy: prospective study from general practice. BMJ. 1997;315:32–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hendriks E, MacNaughton H, MacKenzie MC. First trimester bleeding: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. 2019;99:166–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greene MF. Progesterone for threatened abortion. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1867–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Makrydimas G. Threatened miscarriage: evaluation and management. Br Med J. 2004;329:152–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Devall AJ, Papadopoulou A, Podesek M, Haas DM, Price MJ, Coomarasamy A, et al. Progestogens for preventing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4:CD013792.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Daya S. Luteal support: progestogens for pregnancy protection. Maturitas. 2009;65(Suppl 1):29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schindler A. First trimester endocrinology: consequences for diagnosis and treatment of pregnancy failure. Gynecol Endocrinology: Official J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004;18:51–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ku CW, Zhang X, Zhang VR-Y, Allen JC, Tan NS, Østbye T, et al. Gestational age-specific normative values and determinants of serum progesterone through the first trimester of pregnancy. Sci Rep. 2021;11:4161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghaedi B, Ameri S, Abdulkarim K, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V. Prognostic value of single serum progesterone in the evaluation of symptomatic pregnant patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Emerg Med., Ghaedi B, Ameri S, Abdulkarim K, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V.) Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada:S23–4.

  10. Verhaegen J, Gallos ID, van Mello NM, Abdel-Aziz M, Takwoingi Y, Harb H, et al. Accuracy of single progesterone test to predict early pregnancy outcome in women with pain or bleeding: meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ. 2012;345:e6077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dwamena B. MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Stat Softw Compon. 2009;14 Feb.

  14. Dwamena BA. Meta-analytical integration of Diagnostic Accuracy studies in Stata. Ben Dwamena. 2007.

  15. Shen Hong-yun. Zhang Wen-bing. Clinical value of combined detection of serum progesterone and β-HCG in early threatened abortion. Chin Gen Pract. 2013;11:1389–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Duan L, Yan D, Zeng W, Yang X, Wei Q. Predictive power progesterone combined with beta human chorionic gonadotropin measurements in the outcome of threatened miscarriage. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:431–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Qiong, Zhou Xiao, Xu Hai-geng, et al. The predictive value of combined detection of β-HCG doubling rate and progesterone in the treatment effect of threatened abortion in euthyroid pregnant women. Mod Chin Doctors. 2019;57:65–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wei Hui, Li Ye-hua, Pan Jue-rong et al. Levels of anti-trophoblast cell membrane antibody, carbohydrate antigen 12 – 5, estrogen and progesterone in patients with threatened abortion in early pregnancy and their predictive efficacy for fetal protection failure. Med Guangxi. 2022;44:2085–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zheng Xin-yu, Li Wei, Zhao Yan-sa. Clinical value of peripheral blood insulin-like growth factor-1, transforming growth factor-β1, inflammatory factors and reproductive hormone levels in predicting the outcome of threatened abortion in early pregnancy. Chin Med Frontier J (Electronic Edition). 2021;13:79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kant RH, Ara S, Lone AI, Gupta S. Evaluation of outcome of pregnancy in threatened abortion by serum progesterone levels. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4:1313–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kadam VK, Agrawal S, Saxena P, Laul P. Predictive value of single serum progesterone level for viability in threatened miscarriage. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2019;69:431–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McLindon LA, James G, Beckmann MM, Bertolone J, Mahomed K, Vane M, et al. Progesterone for women with threatened miscarriage (STOP trial): a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2023;38:560–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Siew JYS, Allen JC, Hui CYY, Ku CW, Malhotra R, Østbye T, et al. The randomised controlled trial of micronised progesterone and dydrogesterone (TRoMaD) for threatened miscarriage. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2018;228 (Siew J.Y.S.; Hui C.Y.Y.; Ku C.W.; Tan T.C., tan.thiam.chye@singhealth.com.sg) Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, KK Women?s and Children?s Hospital, Singapore:319–24.

  24. Lek SM, Ku CW, Allen JC, Malhotra R, Tan NS, Østbye T, et al. Validation of serum progesterone < 35nmol/L as a predictor of miscarriage among women with threatened miscarriage. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Tan TC, Ku CW, Kwek LK, Lee KW, Zhang X, Allen JC, et al. Novel approach using serum progesterone as a triage to guide management of patients with threatened miscarriage: a prospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2020;10:9153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ku CW, Allen JC, Malhotra R, Chong HC, Tan NS, Østbye T, et al. How can we better predict the risk of spontaneous miscarriage among women experiencing threatened miscarriage? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31:647–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pillai RN, Konje JC, Tincello DG, Potdar N. Role of serum biomarkers in the prediction of outcome in women with threatened miscarriage: a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:228–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31:391–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan KS, Khan SF, Nwosu CR, Arnott N, Chien PF. Misleading authors’ inferences in obstetric diagnostic test literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:112–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eusebi P. Diagnostic accuracy measures. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;36:267–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet. 2005;365:1500–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu CS, Tan TC, Chen HY, Malhotra R, Allen JC, Østbye T. Threatened miscarriage and depressive and anxiety symptoms among women and partners in early pregnancy. J Affect Disord. 2018;237:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nakajima ST, McAuliffe T, Gibson M. The 24-hour pattern of the levels of serum progesterone and immunoreactive human chorionic gonadotropin in normal early pregnancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1990;71:345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hasan R, Baird DD, Herring AH, Olshan AF, Jonsson Funk ML, Hartmann KE. Patterns and predictors of vaginal bleeding in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:524–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Pang Y-Y, Ma C-L. Real-world pharmacological treatment patterns of patients with threatened miscarriage in China from 2014 to 2020: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022;47:228–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the authors who made detailed data available for this meta-analysis.

Funding

This study was supported by the Science & Technology Department of Guizhou province (ZK[2022]-428), The PhD funding in The Affiliated hospital, Guizhou Medical University (gyfybsky-2021-24), and The Guizhou Health Healthy Committee project (gzwkj2021-309).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yi Gong, Tong Jiang authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beilun District People’s Hospital, Beilun Branch of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Ningbo, China

    Yi Gong, Tong Jiang, Guo-Lin Wu & Ying Shi

  2. Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China

    Yang Sun

  3. College of Pharmacy, Harbin University of Commerce, Harbin, China

    Bu-Wei Han

  4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, 150000, China

    Shan Guan & Jian Li

Authors
  1. Yi Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tong Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guo-Lin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bu-Wei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ying Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shan Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YG, TJ, YS, SG and JL Contributions to conception. YG, TJ and JL participated in extracting and analyzing the data, GLW, BWH, YS, and JL gave critical revisions, YG, SG and JL contributed to design the study, interpretation of data, and the final approval of the article. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shan Guan or Jian Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gong, Y., Jiang, T., Sun, Y. et al. Can single progesterone concentration predict miscarriage in early pregnant women with threatened miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 133 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06303-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06303-7

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us