ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2025
The value of endometrial scratch injury in infertile women trying to conceive through non-in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the effects of endometrial scratch injury (ESI) in infertile couples seeking fertility through non-in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from their inception through August 2023. The search terms included 'endometrial scratch,' 'infertility,' 'implantation,' 'intrauterine insemination (IUI),' and their corresponding MeSH terms. We included all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials involving ESI in women undergoing either natural or IUI cycles. The ESIs varied in severity and were performed during either the follicular or luteal phase of the same or preceding cycle. Our review encompassed 32 studies, totaling 5,897 participants. Of these, seven studies with 1,094 participants assessed ESI in natural cycles, while 25 studies with 4,803 participants evaluated it in IUI cycles. The data extracted included trial location, number of participants, inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, details of the ESI, and outcome parameters (trial registration: CRD42023434127). ESI significantly increased the clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72 to 2.47; p<0.001), ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.13; p<0.001), and chemical pregnancy rate (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.79 to 3.00; p<0.001). However, it had no significant effect on the rates of multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy (p>0.05). ESI improved the clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, and chemical pregnancy rate in both natural and IUI cycles.
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.