ReviewHuman reproduction open2019
Endometrial scratching prior to IVF; does it help and for whom? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2023Pooled it
- Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Endometrial biopsy performed before the first in vitro fertilization does not impact the early pregnancy rate.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- The Effects of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma on Pregnancy Outcomes in Repeated Implantation Failure Patients Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Trial
- Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Trial
- Uterine Cavity Irrigation With Office Hysteroscopy During Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Trial
- Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Trial
- Effect of endometrial injury during menstruation on clinical outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: A randomized control trial.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2020Trial
- Impact of Endometrial Scratching on IVF/ICSI Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The immune milieu after local endometrial injury in women with recurrent implantation failure.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing uterine receptivity for embryo implantation through controlled collagenase intervention.Life science alliance · 2024Article
- Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision versus Hysteroscopy Only in Oocyte Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing The Reproductive Outcomes.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Endometrial scratching and intralipid treatment-no general recommendations.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
- Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision in Oocyte Recipients before Embryo Transfer May Improve Reproductive Outcomes: A Prospective Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2023Article
- Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- The Next Frontier in ART: Harnessing the Uterine Immune Profile for Improved Performance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Endometrial Scratching for Improving Endometrial Receptivity: a Critical Review of Old and New Clinical Evidence.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat is the effect of endometrial scratching in patients with or without prior failed ART cycles on live birth (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy and, if so, for whom. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is hypothesized to improve embryo implantation in ART. Multiple studies have been published, but it remains unclear if endometrial scratching actually improves pregnancy rates and, if so, for which patients. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: For this review, a systematic search for published articles on endometrial scratching and ART was performed on 12 February 2018, in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated endometrial scratching in the cycle prior to the stimulation cycle and reported CPR or LBR were included. RCTs investigating the effect of scratching during the stimulation cycle, or prior to cryo-thaw cycles were excluded. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The effect of scratching was assessed for three different patient groups: patients with no prior IVF/ICSI treatment (Group 0), patients with one failed full IVF/ICSI cycle, including cryo-thaw cycles (Group 1) and patients with two or more failed full IVF/ICSI cycles (Group 2). A meta-analysis was performed when statistical heterogeneity was low; otherwise, a descriptive analysis was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fourteen RCTs involving 2537 participants were included. Most RCTs contained a high or unclear risk of bias on one or more items. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present; therefore meta-analysis for LBR and CPR could only be performed on Group 1. For this group, no differences between scratch and control were found for both LBR (risk ratio (RR) 1.01 [95%CI 0.68-1.51]) and CPR (RR 1.04 [95%CI 0.74-1.45]). For Groups 0 and 2, pooled analysis could not be performed, and for both groups the results of the individual RCTs were negative, neutral and positive. Miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates were evaluated for the three groups (0, 1 and 2) together. Both outcomes were not significantly different between scratch and control (miscarriage rate RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57-1.17] and multiple pregnancy rate RR 1.06 [95%CI 0.84-1.35]). Subgroup analysis, excluding trials with a risk of unintentional endometrial injury in the control group, was performed for Group 0 and 2 for LBR and CPR, and for the overall groups for miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. This reduced the heterogeneity and allowed for pooled analysis in these subgroups. Results of pooled analysis for the subgroups of Group 0 and 2 showed no significant difference for LBR, but CPR was significantly improved after endometrial scratching (Group 0 RR 1.28 [95%CI 1.02-1.62] and Group 2 RR 2.03 [95%CI 1.20-3.43]). Subgroup analysis of the overall groups showed no significant difference for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rate. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitations were that many RCTs had a high or unclear risk of bias on one or several items, clinical heterogeneity was still present despite categorizing into three populations, and that not all RCTs could be included in the analyses because separate data for our three groups could not be provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsIt remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy for women undergoing ART and, if so, for whom. This means endometrial scratching should not be offered in daily practice until results from large and well-designed RCTs and an individual patient data analysis become available. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was sought for the study. The Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology funds of the University Medical Center of Utrecht were used to support the authors throughout the study period and preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.