Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37332387›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2023

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure.

ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure, D Cimadomo, M J de Los Santos, G Griesinger, G Lainas, N Le Clef, D J McLernon, D Montjean, B Toth, N Vermeulen and 1 more

4 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 147 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
30.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06372119 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Letrozole-stimulated Cycle Strategy Versus Artificial Cycle Strategy for Endometrial Preparation in Women With Irregular Menstrual Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMỹ Đức HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled790ConditionsEmbryo Transfer, Irregular Menstruation, Letrozole, Hormone Replacement TherapyArmsLetrozole-stimulated cycle strategy, Artificial cycle strategy
NCT06385444 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Implantation Failure and Pregnancy Loss After in Vitro Fertilization on Couples' Psychological Stress

TypeobservationalSponsorThe First Hospital of Jilin UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled150ConditionsFertilization in Vitro, Pregnancy Loss, Psychological Stress, Post-traumatic Stress
NCT07154875 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Trial of Assisted Hatching Timing (Day-3 vs Day-5) and Its Impact on Blastocyst Morphology and Genetic Outcomes in IVF Cycles Undergoing PGT-A

TypeinterventionalSponsorHoang Minh NganRan2025 to 2026Enrolled158ConditionsInfertility, In Vitro Fertilization, Embryo DevelopmentArmsLaser-Assisted Hatching
NCT07265505 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Study of Immune and Microbiological Modifications of the Endometrium in Cases of Recurrent Implantation Failure and/or Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2026 to 2031Enrolled100ConditionsRecurrent Implantation Failure, Recurrent Pregnancy Loss, Infertility, Female, Endometrial DiseasesArmsEndometrial Biopsy, Vaginal Swab, Blood sample, Pelvic ultrasound (±pelvic MRI)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

147 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Interventions for recurrent embryo implantation failure: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 8 countries.

ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure
D CimadomoIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, GENERA, Clinica Valle Giulia, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5390-9221
M J de Los SantosIVI RMA Global Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1394-8661
G GriesingerDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecological Endocrinology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-5804
G LainasEugonia IVF, Unit of Human Reproduction, Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3865-7142
N Le ClefESHRE Central Office, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4574-1809
D J McLernonSchool of Medicine Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8905-2429
D MontjeanFertilys Fertility Centers, Laval & Brossard, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-7459
B TothGynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
N VermeulenESHRE Central Office, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8046-6799
N MacklonLondon Women's Clinic, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-2316
Eugonia · GRInnsbruck Medical University · ATLondon Women's Clinic · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBValencian Infertility Institute · ESClinica Valle Giulia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionHow should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed? SUMMARY ANSWER: This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsThe ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThis article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of DISCLAIMER:

Indexed as

ARTembryo transferESHREgood practiceguidelinesimplantation failureIVF failurerecurrent implantation failure

Identifiers

PMID37332387
PMCPMC10270320
OpenAlexW4380768002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.