Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 20;2019(11):CD003511. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003511.pub5

Coomarasamy 2015.

Methods Unit of randomization: pregnancy
 Method of randomization: computer‐generated
 Timing of randomization: before conception, reconfirmed after became pregnant
 Blinding: yes
 Power calculation: yes, needed 376 women in each group, planned to recruit 790 women to allow for loss to follow‐up
 Number of centers: multiple ‐ recurrent miscarriage clinics across the UK (36 sites) and Netherlands (9 sites)
836 women randomized, 826 women had results for primary outcome to analyze
Source of funding: UK NIHR
Participants Women with ≥ 3 unexplained miscarriages trying to actively conceive naturally.
Exclusions: unable to conceive after 1 year of being in trial, recognized thrombophilic condition, uterine anomalies, abnormal parental karyotype, or other identifiable cause of recurrent miscarriage.
Age: 18‐39 years
Location: UK and Netherlands
Timing and duration: June 2010‐October 2013
Interventions 400 mg micronized progesterone vaginal suppositories twice daily. Began therapy "soon after receiving a positive" urine pregnancy test (no later than 6 weeks of gestation) through 12 weeks of duration.
Control: matched placebo
Outcomes Live birth after 24 weeks (primary), clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy with fetal heart activity at 12 weeks, miscarriage (loss < 24 weeks), gestational age at delivery, neonatal survival, congenital anomalies, exploratory outcomes ‐ pre‐eclampsia SGA, PPROM, hemorrhage, neonatal outcomes
Notes PROMISE trial
Dates of study: June 2010‐October 2013
Funding sources: UK NIHR
Declarations of interest: disclosure forms on file at NEJM.org, not stated in paper
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated randomization
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Assignment through secure internet facility
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Quote: "participants, physicians, and trial nurses were unaware of the study‐group assignments throughout the trial"
Comment: identical drug and placebo
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk As above
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 10 total lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes reported on
Other bias Low risk No other biases identified