This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stephen C. Schoenbaum, MD; Ann Aschengrau Levin, MS; Richard R. Monson, MD; Phillip G. Stubblefield, MD; Kenneth J. Ryan, MD
Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston

JAMA. 1981;245(11):1119.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

We agree that there is a potential bias in the risk estimates obtainable from a study such as ours. As Dr Chung points out, if such a bias is occurring, it is unlikely to account for the magnitude of increased risk of pregnancy loss that we observed in women with two or more previous induced abortions.

Furthermore, the potential bias would apply almost exclusively to losses experienced in the first trimester. Since more than 90% of induced abortions are performed in the first trimester,¹ a woman having a loss in the midtrimester has already had her chance to opt for induced abortion. We did observe a substantial increase in the risk of midtrimester, not just first trimester, losses. The midtrimester losses included missed abortions in which the problem most likely begins in the first trimester even though the loss is experienced in the midtrimester.

If the suggested . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?