ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023
Conventional IVF performs similarly in women with and without endometriosis.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometriosis: new insights and opportunities for relief of symptoms.Biology of reproduction · 2025Review
- The Effects of Endometriosis on Oocyte and Embryo Quality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of success rates in early stages of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women with and without endometriosis.Narra J · 2024Article
- Nonsurgical approaches to the diagnosis and evaluation of endometriosis.Fertility and sterility · 2024Review
- What is the impact of endometriosis and the AFS stage on cumulative pregnancy rates in IVF programs?Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Endometriosis and IVF treatment outcomes: unpacking the process.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA reduced oocyte competence has been claimed as one of the factors underlying infertility in women with endometriosis. This idea has justified the hypothesis that intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), rather than conventional IVF (c-IVF), may overcome oocyte impairment and ensure better assisted reproduction technology (ART) outcomes; however, data from the literature are controversial. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare ART success rates following (c-IVF) between women with and without endometriosis in the presence of normozoospermic partners.
methodsThis is a retrospective, matched case-control study of 314 patients who underwent c-IVF cycles between January 2014 and December 2020. Women with endometriosis were matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients undergoing ART for other indications, considering age (± 6 months), number of oocytes retrieved (± 1), and study period. The main outcome measures included total fertilization failure, fertilization rate, embryo quality, cumulative clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates.
resultsThe fertilization rate and the proportion of women with total fertilization failure did not differ between women with and without endometriosis. Similarly, all other embryological variables did not also differ, except for the number of top-quality cleavage stage embryos which was higher in the endometriosis group. Cumulative clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar between women with and without endometriosis.
conclusionA diagnosis of endometriosis does not negatively affect the performance of c-IVF; thus, c-IVF can be efficiently used in women affected, unless a male factor is also involved. This issue holds clinical relevance to help operators on their insemination technique decision-making.
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.