Table 1.
The prevalence of positive ANAs in women with a history of RPL in different studies.
| Author | Year | Ethnic/Country | Study subjects | Definition of RPL (the number of pregnancy loss) | ANA detection methods (cut-off dilution) | Prevalence of ANA+ (case group) | Prevalence of ANA+ (control group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hefler-Frischmuth et al. (12) | 2017 | Caucasian | Case: 114 RPL | ≥3 | ELISA (unclear) | NA | NA |
| Control: 107 age-matched healthy controls | |||||||
| Sakthiswary et al. (13) | 2015 | Malaysia | Case: 68 uRPL | ≥2 | IF (1:80) | 35.3% | 13.3% |
| Control: 60 non-pregnant women without pregnancy | |||||||
| Molazadeh et al. (14) | 2014 | Iran | Case: 560 uRPL | ≥2 | IF (1:40) | 13.2% | 0.9% |
| Control: 560 healthy controls | |||||||
| Roye-Green et al. (15) | 2011 | Jamaica | Case: 50 RPL | ≥2 | IF (unclear) | 2% | 2.2% |
| Control: 135 multiparous women without pregnancy loss | |||||||
| Ticconi et al. (16) | 2010 | Caucasian | Case: 194 RPL | ≥2 | IF (1:80) | 50% | 16% |
| Control: 100 non-pregnant controls | |||||||
| Giasuddin (17) | 2010 | Bangladesh | Case: 35 RPL | ≥3 | ELISA (unclear) | 20% | 0.54% |
| Control: 37 normal pregnant women | |||||||
| Bustos et al. (18) | 2006 | Argentina | Case: 118 RPL | ≥3 | IF (1:40) | 16% | 14% |
| Control: 125 fertile control women without abortions and two children | |||||||
| Habara et al. (19) | 2002 | Japan | Case: 49 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (unclear) | NA | NA |
| Control: 72 normal women with sterility caused by male factor | |||||||
| Matsubayashi et al. (20) | 2001 | Japan | Case: 273 RPL | ≥2 | IF (1:80) | 23.4% | 13% |
| Control: 200 healthy non-pregnant women | |||||||
| Kaider et al. (21) | 1999 | USA | Case: 302 RPL | ≥3 | ELISA (unclear) | 45.7% | 10% |
| Control: 20 healthy fertile women | |||||||
| Kovács et al. (22) | 1999 | Hungary | Case: 59 uRPL | ≥2 | IF (unclear) | 3.39% | 8% |
| Control: 25 non-pregnant women without pregnancy | |||||||
| Stern et al. (23) | 1998 | New Zealand | Case: 97 RPL | ≥3 | IF (1:80) | 22.7% | 9.4% |
| Control: 106 fertile controls | |||||||
| Konidaris et al. (24) | 1994 | Greece | Case: 44 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (1:40) | 9.1% | 2.9% |
| Control: 4 non-pregnant healthy women without pregnancy loss | |||||||
| Bahar et al. (25) | 1993 | Kuwait | Case: 103 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (1:40) | 13.6% | 1.2% |
| Control: 85 multiparous non-pregnant women without pregnancy loss | |||||||
| Kwak et al. (26) | 1992 | USA | Case: 153 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (1:40) | 19.0% | 14.0% |
| Control: 90 normal controls | |||||||
| Harger et al. (27) | 1989 | USA | Case: 277 RPL | ≥2 | IF (1:40) | 16.3% | 16.8%/16.6% |
| Control: 199 non-pregnant/299 pregnant women | |||||||
| Petri et al. (28) | 1987 | USA | Case: 44 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (1:40) | 16% | 20% |
| Control: 40 Volunteers | |||||||
| Garcia-De La Torre et al. (29) | 1984 | Mexico | Case: 20 uRPL | ≥3 | IF (1:20) | 30% | 6.6% |
| Control: 30 women with normal pregnancy |
NA, Not Applicable.