SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023
Impact of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis on Pregnancy Outcomes In Patients Undergoing Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Endometrial receptivity-guided embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical potential of fluid-based biomarkers for recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-time intrauterine dissolved oxygen dynamics across the luteal phase: a potential non-invasive functional biomarker of endometrial status.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Observational
- Endometrial aging and uterine receptivity: endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) outcomes in female patients of diverse age groups.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Multidimensional regulatory architecture of endometrial receptivity and its translational implications for implantation failure.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Personal KPIs in IVF Laboratory: Are They Measurable or Distortable? A Case Study Using AI-Based Benchmarking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Is Artificial Intelligence (AI) currently able to provide evidence-based scientific responses on methods that can improve the outcomes of embryo transfers? No.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
- Current Status of Ovarian and Endometrial Biomarkers in Predicting ART Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Personalized embryo transfer guided by rsERT improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Personalized Embryo Transfer Improves Live Birth Rates in Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Propensity Score-Matched Prospective Cohort Study With Window of Implantation Stability Analysis.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyze the influence of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) on embryo transfer (ET) results in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched from inception up to December 2022 for studies comparing pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing personalized embryo transfer (pET) by ERA versus standard ET. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model. We identified twelve studies, including 14,224 patients. No differences were observed between patients undergoing ERA test and those not undergoing ERA test prior to ET in terms of live birth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63-1.58, I
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.