Clinical management of recurrent pregnancy loss: a critical assessment of international guidelines.

Authors

Marcela Torres de Melo Cavalcante, Daniel de Sousa Sobral, Anna Sayuri Albuquerque Sawaki, Graziela Martins Bezerra Correia Férrer, Marcelo Borges Cavalcante

Published in

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. Volume 327. Pages 115501. Oct 15, 2026. Epub Oct 15, 2026.

Abstract

To compare the methodological quality, evidence-grading systems, and clinical recommendations of the guidelines for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
This narrative review evaluated the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), Australasian Clinical Practice Guideline for Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (ACCEPT), and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. An overall recommendation grade (A, B, or C) was assigned using a previously published complementary classification system. Evidence-grading systems, recommendation strength, and clinical recommendations were compared across the major etiological domains of RPL.
ESHRE and RCOG demonstrated the highest methodological quality and were classified as Grade A, whereas ACCEPT and ASRM were classified as Grade B. Heterogeneity was observed in evidence-grading systems and recommendation frameworks. ESHRE, RCOG, and ACCEPT adopted different approaches to evaluating evidence, whereas ASRM did not use a formal evidence-grading system.The guidelines differed substantially in their definitions of RPL and recommendations regarding genetic evaluation, uterine surgery, endocrine disorders, inherited thrombophilias, reproductive immunology, chronic endometritis, and unexplained RPL. Broad consensus was observed regarding antiphospholipid syndrome, uterine cavity assessment, thyroid dysfunction, lifestyle modification, and psychological support.
RPL guidelines exhibit important methodological and clinical heterogeneity that extends beyond differences in the available evidence. Harmonization of diagnostic definitions, standardized approaches to evidence appraisal, greater transparency in consensus development, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to improve and facilitate precision medicine in RPL.

PMID:
42893678
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 19 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.