ArticlePloS one2025
Comparing the accuracy of Pipelle versus hysteroscopy and curettage in the diagnosis of chronic endometritis in women with recurrent implantation failure: A prospective cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Abnormal Uterine Bleeding to Malignancy: The Role of Hormonal Profiling and Histopathology in Early Detection of Endometrial Carcinoma.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- International Expert Consensus Statement on Chronic Endometritis: A Comprehensive Literature Review and Modified e-Delphi Study.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChronic endometritis (CE) is defined as chronic inflammation in the endometrium; when treated, implantations significantly improve. The standard test for CE confirmation is an endometrial biopsy, but the appropriate sampling method needs to be clarified. We conducted this study to compare pipelle biopsy and hysteroscopy with curettage. STUDY
designThis is a prospective cross-sectional study with all (40 patients) RIF patients under 40 referred to our tertiary center between December 2021, and December 2022 who underwent pipelle biopsy and hysteroscopy with curettage between days twelve to fifteen of their menstruation cycle. We then compared the diagnostic accuracy, demographics, and previous IVF history between the CE and non-CE groups.
resultsPatients had a mean age of 34 ( ± 5.4) years and BMI of 25.8 ( ± 3.6). Thirteen patients (32.5%) were diagnosed with CE. There was no significant difference between CE and non-CE groups regarding maternal or paternal age, BMI, number of IVFs and embryos, and interval from the last IVF. Pipelle biopsy had 100% accuracy for CE diagnosis, while hysteroscopy with curettage had a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI: 77.8% - 100%) and specificity of 100%. Based on McNemar's test, the two sampling methods had no significant difference (P = 1.0 and 0.317, respectively).
conclusionThere is no significant difference between the two methods in the diagnosis accuracy of CE in RIF patients. Since pipelle is more cost-effective and has fewer complications than hysteroscopy with curettage, pipelle biopsy may replace curettage for CE diagnosis.
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.