The odds of NOT having an early MC

kns1988

These percentages seem to be a staple on a lot of month boards, and I think it's pretty comforting to reference in the first trimester. Posting it here in case it's helpful for anyone else.

Progress	Probability of NOT having a miscarriage
3W, 0D	67%
3W, 1D	67.10%
3W, 2D	67.40%
3W, 3D	68%
3W, 4D	68.70%
3W, 5D	69.70%
3W, 6D	70.80%
4W, 0D	72%
4W, 1D	73.50%
4W, 2D	74.80%
4W, 3D	76.40%
4W, 4D	77.90%
4W, 5D	79.50%
4W, 6D	81.10%
5W, 0D	82.70%
5W, 1D	84.20%
5W, 2D	85.60%
5W, 3D	87%
5W, 4D	88.30%
5W, 5D	89.50%
5W, 6D	90.60%
6W, 0D	91.60%
6W, 1D	92.50%
6W, 2D	93.40%
6W, 3D	94.10%
6W, 4D	94.70%
6W, 5D	95.30%
6W, 6D	95.70%
7W, 0D	96.10%
7W, 1D	96.50%
7W, 2D	96.80%
7W, 3D	97%
7W, 4D	97.20%
7W, 5D	97.40%
7W, 6D	97.50%
8W, 0D	97.60%
8W, 1D	97.70%
8W, 2D	97.80%
8W, 3D	97.80%
8W, 4D	97.90%
8W, 5D	97.90%
8W, 6D	97.90%
9W, 0D	97.90%
9W, 1D (and on)	98%+

beforeyou

thanks for posting this  

talkthewholetime

This isn't the same stats I found last time but these are way better so I'm going to go with it! 

ETA or it is, but as a STM it seems way less scary. 

hellopartyof5

talkthewholetime said:

This isn't the same stats I found last time but these are way better so I'm going to go with it! 

ETA or it is, but as a STM it seems way less scary. 

Right?!? Maybe we read it the wrong way... Or something. 

talkthewholetime

nauticallife said:

talkthewholetime said:

This isn't the same stats I found last time but these are way better so I'm going to go with it! 

ETA or it is, but as a STM it seems way less scary. 

Right?!? Maybe we read it the wrong way... Or something. 

I think I was just much more freaked - I found the old site I used, and it's the same stats. I guess I am more sane this time - go figure.
https://spacefem.com/pregnant/mc.php?m=08&d=10&y=12

whaat

Yay! Thanks for posting!

BelcherEars

Love this Thanks for posting!

FallenLeaves1990

I definitely needed to read this! Thank you for posting it!

KilgraveMadeMeDoIt

Also, I'd like to add this information in here; some from personal experience, some medical information. This is from current evidence-based information that I have gotten from UpToDate (a major clinical resource for physicians) to share with you guys:
- While slow doubling time *can* be suggestive of a non-viable pregnancy, 15% of viable pregnancies DO NOT DOUBLE in 48 hours.
- The lowest recorded 48hr increase in a known viable pregnancy is 53%.

I personally had a pregnancy misdiagnosed as failed because my hCG was not doubling appropriately. The reason was was because the pregnancy started as twins. One stopped growing, so my hCG increase slowed waaaaaay down because I went from two babies to one. I was told the pregnancy failed. I was above the discretionary zone and because my dates were off (PCOS) they expected to see at least a foetal pole on ultrasound because it was thought I was almost two weeks further along than I was. It was recommended I have a D&C. I pushed for a second ultrasound in two weeks (there was no reason to have a D&C that early as my body hadn't been given a chance to resolve a failed pregnancy itself.) The second ultrasound showed one empty sac and one healthy foetus who is now my five year old daughter. I was actually ten days earlier than they thought. 

Many doctors are quick to jump to D&C, cytotec, or other interventions to resolve a likely non-viable pregnancy because they want to help a woman through the hard part faster, but I urge you guys to be cautious and to talk to your doctor about the appropriateness of expectant management ("watchful waiting") if you are faced with this possibility. Miscarriage CAN be misdiagnosed. It happens more than people think. I'm just one story, one anecdote, and anecdotes are not data, but there is plenty of data to suggest that what we know for sure about early pregnancy is that early pregnancy is a complicated thing!

While miscarriage is extremely common and it makes a lot of sense to have a high clinical suspicion of miscarriage if the beta is not doubling, there is usually no reason to jump to intervention right away. You have every right to ask for additional follow up. You can ask to just wait and see, to see if your body will resolve things on its own or if you actually do have a 'rough start' viable pregnancy. Some doctors become inordinately obsessed with the 48 hour 'doubling rule' but it is a guideline with wiggle room, not a hard and fast regulation. 

/Getting off my soapbox now
//Required disclaimer: I am not a doctor yet. I am definitely not your doctor. Talk to your actual, licensed health care provider to decide what is right for you. 

talkthewholetime

@KilgraveMadeMeDoIt , you had me at evidenced based

garciame57

Thank you for posting this! 

Jolenef07

Thanks for sharing! I get way too stupidly obsessed with my hcg numbers anyway. 

tygi

I SO needed this. Thank you! In a time when "Dr. Google" can be a downer, this positive perspective is welcomed!

whaat

So I've been thinking about this more and, to clarify (I might be wrong) I think these numbers are true *assuming all is well at that timepoint*. For example, if you see your doc on that day and they say everything is fine, then these are your odds. I don't think it makes sense to use these numbers before you've seen someone or know what's going on.
is this correct?

kns1988

@whaat and others, I'm curious as to why people think there's harm in believing these numbers. I get that it's different for different people based on a number of factors, but I wouldn't think anyone is going to go about their pregnancy any differently based on whether they think they have a 4% chance of MC or a 20% chance. I'm genuinely wondering why this rubs people the wrong way.  

ETA: posting and running. I can't bump at work.

DunkinDecaf

I think it's just painful for women who have believed they're in the clear because of the numbers in the past only to find out they're the 2% and had a loss. I think it can bring up memories of heartbreak. Being pregnant after a loss is hard.

whaat

@kns1988 @SRose109 no I just think that an important piece of info may be missing. There's a section like this in "Expecting Better", but she makes sure to say that *if everything is ok at* whatever time, then these are the odds. Do you know what I mean? I don't mean to be doom and gloom, but I am 7w1d right now, but I haven't seen a doctor yet. Who knows what is going on in there? I know it's probably fine (statistically speaking) but I really don't know until I see a healthcare provider.

DunkinDecaf

Also true @whaat

whaat

And to clarify, there's no harm in believing these numbers. As @kns1988 said, you wouldn't behave any other way anyway. I'm just nit picking. 

Oakleypoozles

This is awesome. Thank you for posting this! 

thatlauragirl

Having been through 3 losses myself, I say whatever brings you comfort and eases your anxiety is a good thing! While these statistics weren't favorable for me in the past, they might very well be this time around. I hope they are for all of us.

whaat

@thatlauragirl I hope so too! 

SunshineJar

I've suffered a loss and my GP put it best, it jusy comes down to whatever will be will be. Like pulling names out of a hat. You may never miscarry you may miscarry five times, take it one day at a time and believe in fate. Your body will be ready when it's ready. I'm just relieved to be fertile and loved

RiverSong15

My issue with these numbers, beyond what @whaat said, is that I don't believe they are from a valid scientific source. If you follow the posts, it looks like this originated from a poster on the Jan 16 board. However, if you follow the links in her post, these numbers are from a random forum/blog post, not a respected medical source. The blog post cites Wikipedia as one of its sources and the numbers are based on one scientific study from 1999 (she cites a second paper, but admits she didn't have full access, which means she read the abstract and called it good enough). They are based on survival rates at 6, 8, and 10 weeks and the daily data are interpolated. 
I just don't think breaking it down daily is scientifically valid. 

This is is not to say the premise is wrong. Every day that you go without a problem means your odds of miscarriage are lower. Once you see a heartbeat on an ultrasound, the risk drops much lower (5% or less), and once you're in second tri, it's even lower (less than 1%), based on my OB's opinion. Interpolating between those points is much more difficult. From a scientific viewpoint, the rampant re-posting and circulation of information from a non-medical source bothers me a lot. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I was in that 4% group previously.

If seeing your risk drop in a concrete way helps ease your anxiety, great! I just wish people were more aware of what does and does not constitute valid sources of information before passing the information along. This is a gripe I have with social media in general, not just TB.

ficbot

Riversong, you make a good point. I went in for fertility testing and was freaking out because OMG over 35, and the doctor pretty much did not care about that at all. She had certain tests she wanted to run and was much more interested in the results of the tests than when my birthday was. There are women younger than me who score differently in those tests than me who might be at a higher risk even though they are under 35. You can't always isolate one thing and say it is the deciding factor.

talkthewholetime

Edited: I can't read

missem880334

@kns1988 this is REALLY comforting! Thank you for posting! 

chloe97

RiverSong15 said:

My issue with these numbers, beyond what @whaat said, is that I don't believe they are from a valid scientific source. If you follow the posts, it looks like this originated from a poster on the Jan 16 board. However, if you follow the links in her post, these numbers are from a random forum/blog post, not a respected medical source. The blog post cites Wikipedia as one of its sources and the numbers are based on one scientific study from 1999 (she cites a second paper, but admits she didn't have full access, which means she read the abstract and called it good enough). They are based on survival rates at 6, 8, and 10 weeks and the daily data are interpolated. 
I just don't think breaking it down daily is scientifically valid. 

This is is not to say the premise is wrong. Every day that you go without a problem means your odds of miscarriage are lower. Once you see a heartbeat on an ultrasound, the risk drops much lower (5% or less), and once you're in second tri, it's even lower (less than 1%), based on my OB's opinion. Interpolating between those points is much more difficult. From a scientific viewpoint, the rampant re-posting and circulation of information from a non-medical source bothers me a lot. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I was in that 4% group previously.

If seeing your risk drop in a concrete way helps ease your anxiety, great! I just wish people were more aware of what does and does not constitute valid sources of information before passing the information along. This is a gripe I have with social media in general, not just TB.

All of this ^^^^^

Thank you @RiverSong15 for clearly articulating what I was thinking. I value evidence-based statistics, but Ive seen so many different statistics even just about the overall chance of MC-everything from 15% to 33%. Some stats lump all 35+ women into one category, even though the MC rate for a 35 year old is considerably lower than for a 40 year old. It's hard to know what to believe and this is why it's so hard to count on these statistics for comfort. At least for me and the way my brain works.

kns1988

RiverSong15, good point. I'm usually someone who gets really irritated by pseudo-scientific studies and by misrepresentation of data, so I wrestled with myself before posting this and before defending it. For me, though, it comes down to it being something that comforts me so I went ahead and posted it. 

KRMcD

Since we've already determined that we are unsure of the accuracy of these stats, my question probably doesn't have an answer.  BUT.

Are these the odds of giving birth to a baby with a heartbeat, or odds of being able to take your baby home from the hospital?

comealongponds

@KRMcD - these are theoretical odds of a pregnancy continuing. No guarantees of how many weeks the pregnancy will go, or potential for complications after delivery. You can find the original table here:

https://spacefem.com/pregnant/mc.php?m=08&d=10&y=12

The the author extrapolated data from a couple of papers (one of which she did not have full access to) and specifically states that the chart is her assumptions and that the numbers are an estimate - not scientific data. 

Edit - spelling

josiebegosie2002

Love this!  Thanks