ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
The use of propensity score matching to assess the effectiveness of the endometrial receptivity analysis in patients with recurrent implantation failure.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One potential cause of implantation failure is abnormal endometrial receptivity, and how to objectively evaluate endometrial receptivity has been a matter of great concern. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA), a next-generation sequencing-based test that assesses endometrial gene expression, may be valuable in predicting endometrial receptivity, but whether ERA improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is currently controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ERA on pregnancy outcomes in patients with RIF. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study analysis for a population of patients with RIF undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles in the reproductive center of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2019 to December 2022(n=1598). FET cycles with personalized embryo transfer (PET) under ERA guidance were included in the ERA group (n=43); after using propensity score matching (PSM), a total of 120 FET cycles were included as a control group. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups. Further, the relationship between the number of previous implant failures and the rate of implant window displacement was discussed. The factors affecting the window of implantation (WOI) displacement were also assessed. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, spontaneous abortion rate, and live birth rate between the ERA group and the matched control patients ( Conclusion: The results of the study showed no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes in patients who received ERA compared to those who did not.
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.