ArticleCureus2024
Assessment of the Role of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis in Enhancing Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes for Advanced-Age Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endometrial receptivity-guided embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Aging Regulates Receptivity by Modulating the Expression of Osteopontin and HOXA10 in the Human Endometrium.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness evaluation of endometrial receptivity analysis for recurrent implantation failure and analysis of clinical factors affecting implantation window.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in multi-omics and aging clock research for female reproductive health and aging.MedScience · 2026Review
- Advanced maternal age as a risk factor for endometrial receptivity in repeated implantation failure: intersectional transcriptomic analysis and gene validation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following endometrial receptivity assessment-guided personalized euploid embryo transfer in patients with previous implantation failures.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn contemporary society, socially active women are increasingly planning their fertility for later in life. The fertility outcomes for advanced-age patients, even with egg donation, are often suboptimal due to endometrial aging. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is one of the core problems for assisted reproductive technology (ART), especially for advanced-age patients. High-quality, euploid embryos and synchronization between the embryonic stage and the uterine endometrial lining are crucial for positive outcomes. The study aims to improve ART outcomes with personalized embryo transfer (pET) according to endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) in advanced-age patients with challenging reproductive histories, and RIF by utilizing, donor oocytes and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for embryo testing.
methodsA randomized, controlled observational follow-up study was conducted from 2020 to 2023. After obtaining informed consent, 320 patients with RIF were selected. Patients were allocated into the study group and control group 1 based on consistent application of randomization principles, while control group 2 was selected separately. The study group included patients undergoing PGT-A and ERA, aged 35-45 years, with a mean age of 40.5±3.7 years. Control group 1 comprised patients undergoing PGT-A, aged 35-45 years, with a mean age of 40±4.2 years. Control group 2 consisted of patients undergoing PGT-A and ERA, aged less than 35 years, with a mean age of 31.6±2.2 years.
resultsResults suggest that ERA may improve implantation and pregnancy outcomes in advanced-age patients, particularly those with RIFs. The pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the study group (77.9%), compared to control group 1 (57.6%) (p=0.0007), and no significant difference compared to control group 2 (77.3%) (p=0.94). The implantation rate was higher in the study group (54.1%) than in control group 1 (39.4%) (p=0.0009), and there was no significant difference between the study group and control group 2 (50%, p=0.87). The live birth rate was also higher in the study group (71.3%), compared to control group 1 (39.4%) (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences between the study group and control group 2 (65.9%, p=0.50).
conclusionpET guided by ERA significantly improves pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates in advanced-age patients with challenging reproductive histories. pET provides ART outcomes with no significant difference between advanced-age patients and younger patients with pET guided by ERA.
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.