ArticleQatar medical journal2025
Endometrial osseous metaplasia presented as infertility cases with intra-operative obstacles: Two case reports and literature review.
Article in Qatar medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endometrial osseous metaplasia (OM) is a rare condition characterized by the transformation of endometrial tissue into bone cells. Despite its rarity, OM remains a significant contributor to infertility. Although the underlying mechanism remains debatable, an association with previous abortions and curettage has been suggested. Case presentation: We present two cases of OM presented to the infertility clinic and discuss their similarities and discrepancies in presentation and risk factors. A transvaginal ultrasound raises suspicion about the diagnosis of OM with a hyperechoic mass and post-acoustic shadowing. An office hysteroscopy showed white, mesh-like bony sheets. Both cases underwent operative hysteroscopy to address surgical challenges, and the two cases were followed postoperatively for one year. Discussion: A comprehensive literature review examined various aspects of OM, including diagnosis, therapeutic options, outcomes, prognosis, and follow-up. Our aim was to raise awareness of this intriguing condition by providing up-to-date knowledge and emphasizing the central role of hysteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment. Here, we present two cases with the same complaint, infertility. Moreover, although the same treatment method was used in both cases, only one achieved pregnancy. This highlights that OM is a possible underlying cause of infertility, in addition to considering other factors that contribute to the overall clinical picture. Conclusion: OM should be considered in the evaluation of infertility despite its rarity, especially with hyperechoic lesions and acoustic shadowing on ultrasound examination. Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis and therapeutic approaches. A complete understanding of the reasons that trigger its growth is crucial. To rule out other differential diagnosis, a holistic evaluation of the patient's history, imaging, and histopathological examination is needed.
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.