Christiansen Ole B
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.
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2014 Mar;41(1):19-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2013.10.001. Epub 2013 Dec 7.
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.
本文旨在强调研究方法中可能解释复发性流产（RPL）研究为何常常得出差异极大结果的陷阱。希望对这一问题的洞察能帮助临床医生判断哪些已发表的研究最为可靠。这可能有助于研究人员在未来研究中消除方法学缺陷，有望在RPL诊断测试和治疗的有效性方面达成某种共识。
