ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Ultrasound evaluation of changes in endometrial receptivity from the day of ovulation to the day of transfer in patients with a history of intrauterine adhesions: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tiao-Jing-Cu-Yun Acupuncture combined with estradiol in the treatment of patients with thin endometrium undergoing hormone replacement therapy for frozen embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of endometrial perfusion by arrival time parametric imaging using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in patients with intrauterine adhesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Ultrasound characteristics of endometrial receptivity in patients with intrauterine adhesion following endometrial polyp surgery and their impact on pregnancy.Frontiers in physiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High rates of infertility and pregnancy complications in patients with intrauterine adhesion (IUA) even after surgical repair may be associated with poor endometrial receptivity (ER). In our previous study, we found that changes occurred in ER from the day of ovulation to the day of transfer in patients with a normal uterine cavity during natural cycles. However, the changes in ER ultrasound indicators in patients with a history of IUA during natural cycles are unclear, and this study thus aimed to analyze these changes. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 161 women with a history of IUA who underwent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) was conducted. ER changes from ovulation to the transfer day in the overall, clinically pregnant, and nonpregnant populations were analyzed. Patients were further allocated to the mild IUA or moderate-to-severe IUA subgroup based on the degree of IUA. Results: Endometrial morphology was mainly type C (a "triple-line" endometrium) on the ovulation day, but type B (an echo of the endometrium similar to that of the surrounding uterine muscle layer) was predominant on the transfer day. From ovulation to the day of transfer in the overall population, there were no statistically significant differences in endometrial blood flow classification or subendometrial volume, but there was an increase in endometrial thickness (9.49±1.89 Conclusions: During natural cycles, in patients with a history of IUA, endometrial morphology mainly changed from type C to B, thickness increased, and the volume and frequency of peristalsis decreased. The blood supply of both the endometrium and subendometrium decreased significantly in the pregnant group. These findings provide a better understanding of the changes in ER in such patients, which is helpful for their pretransfer conversation.
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.