Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37336552›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2023

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Nienke E van Hoogenhuijze, Gemma Lahoz Casarramona, Sarah Lensen, Cindy Farquhar, Mohan S Kamath, Aleyamma T Kunjummen, Nick Raine-Fenning, Sine Berntsen, Anja Pinborg, Shari Mackens and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Endometrial scratching before euploid embryo transfer: a case-control study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 15 institutions in 10 countries.

Nienke E van HoogenhuijzeDepartment of Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9057-1306
Gemma Lahoz CasarramonaDepartment of Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sarah LensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-1142
Cindy FarquharDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mohan S KamathDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0316-636X
Aleyamma T KunjummenDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Nick Raine-FenningNurture Fertility, The Fertility Partnership, Nottingham, UK.
Sine BerntsenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Clinic, Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anja PinborgFertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8340-104X
Shari MackensCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Jette, Belgium.
Zeynep Ozturk InalDepartment of Obstetrics, Konya Education and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Ernest H Y NgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID 0000-0002-7688-4557
Jennifer S M MakDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assisted Reproduction Technology Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong 9F, Hong Kong SAR.
Sachin A NarvekarDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Bangalore Assisted Conception Center, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Wellington P MartinsReproductive Medicine, SEMEAR Fertilidade, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Mia Steengaard OlesenFertility Clinic, The Fertility Clinic Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Helen L TorranceDepartment of Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Marinus J C EijkemansDepartment of Data Science and Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6622-8134
Frank J M BroekmansDepartment of Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLChristian Medical College, Vellore · INBangalore Diabetes Centre · INChinese University of Hong Kong · HKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKKonya Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRMonash Medical Centre · AUQueen Mary Hospital · CNRegional Hospital Horsens · DKThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BEUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life App1171592National Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity Medical Center Utrecht
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis. SEARCH

methodsA systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET. OUTCOMES: Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroInfertility, FemaleBirth RateEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy RateSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicARTendometrial injuryendometrial samplingendometrial scratchendometrial scratchingfrozen embryo transferICSIindividual participant data meta-analysisIPDIVF

Identifiers

PMID37336552
PMCPMC10628489
OpenAlexW4381251673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.