SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Endometrial receptivity-guided embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by TERTs compared with standard embryo transfer (sET) in assisted reproductive technology.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CS) at low or moderate risk of bias was conducted. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and CINAHL were searched to November 2025 without restrictions. Conference abstracts and reference lists were also screened. Reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. RCTs and CS were pooled separately using random-effects models. Odds ratios (ORs) were synthesized using the generic inverse-variance method. Prespecified subgroups included prior failures and euploid transfers.
resultsWe included 44 studies (4 RCTs; 40 CS). Thirty-five studies evaluated ERA, six rsERT, and four other platforms. In women with limited or no prior failures, two low-risk RCTs showed pET with ERA probably results in little or no difference in LBR versus sET (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.10; 1069 women; moderate certainty). In women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) transferring untested embryos, nine low/moderate-risk CS showed a probable increase in LBR with TERT-guided pET (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34-1.86; 4754 women; moderate certainty), with similar direction of effect across ERA, rsERT, and ERT. Among RIF women undergoing euploid transfers, five studies provided very uncertain evidence of benefit (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.83-2.22; 852 women; very low certainty). Findings were heterogeneous and imprecise, yielding very low certainty of evidence.
conclusionCurrent evidence does not support routine use of TERTs in non-RIF. In RIF, TERT-guided pET is probably associated with higher LBR when untested embryos are transferred, but benefits remain uncertain in euploid transfers, reflecting either a small biological effect, methodological bias, or inconsistent protocol implementation. Future research should prioritize adequately powered RCTs in RIF, especially with euploid embryos, and direct comparisons of TERT platforms and assessment of test reproducibility.
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.